> Any modified versions, derivative works, or software that incorporates any portion of this Software must be released under this same license (HOPL) or a compatible license that maintains equivalent or stronger human-only restrictions.
That’s not what copyleft means, that’s just a share-alike provision. A copyleft provision would require you to share the source-code, which would be beautiful, but it looks like the author misunderstood…
> A copyleft provision would require you to share the source-code, which would be beautiful, but it looks like the author misunderstood…
This license doesn't require the original author to provide source code in the first place. But then, neither does MIT, AFAICT.
But also AFAICT, this is not even a conforming open-source license, and the author's goals are incompatible.
> ...by natural human persons exercising meaningful creative judgment and control, without the involvement of artificial intelligence systems, machine learning models, or autonomous agents at any point in the chain of use.
> Specifically prohibited uses include, but are not limited to: ...
From the OSI definition:
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Linux distros aren't going to package things like this because it would be a nightmare even for end users trying to run local models for personal use.
Is it valid? I’m not really convinced. I’m not particularly a fan of copyright to begin with, and this looks like yet another abuse of it. I consider myself a creative person, and I fundamentally do not believe it is ethical to try to prevent people from employing tools to manipulate the creative works one gives to them.