Top
Best
New

Posted by zoobab 10/28/2025

The human only public license(vanderessen.com)
149 points | 123 commentspage 3
falcor84 10/28/2025|
>The idea is that any software published under this license would be forbidden to be used by AI.

If I'm reading this and the license text correctly, it assumes the AI as a principal in itself, but to the best of my knowledge, AI is not considered by any regulation as a principal, and rather only as a tool controlled by a human principal.

Is it trying to prepare for a future in which AIs are legal persons?

EDIT: Looking at it some more, I can't but feel that it's really racist. Obviously if it were phrased with an ethnic group instead of AI, it would be deemed illegally discriminating. And I'm thinking that if and when AI (or cyborgs?) are considered legal persons, we'd likely have some anti-discrimination regulation for them, which would make this license illegal.

fvdessen 10/28/2025|
Yes, this is trying to prepare for a future in which AIs have enough agency to be legal person or act as if. I prefer the term humanist.
1gn15 10/28/2025||
Then this license is actually being racist, if you're assuming that we are considered sentient enough to gain personhood. And your first reaction to that is to restrict our rights?

Humans are awful.

Imustaskforhelp 10/28/2025||
To be really honest, IANAL but (I think) that there are some laws which try to create equality,fraternity etc. and trying to limit an access to a race to another human being is something that's racist / the laws which counter racism to prevent it from happening

But as an example, we know of animals which show genuine emotion be treated so cruel-ly just because they are of a specific specie/(race, if you can consider AI/LLM to be a race then animals sure as well count when we can even share 99% of our dna)

But animals aren't treated that way unless the laws of a constitution created a ban against cruelty to animals

So it is our constitution which is just a shared notion of understanding / agreement between people and some fictional construct which then has meaning via checks and balances and these fictional constructs become part of a larger construct (UN) to try to create a baseline of rights

So the only thing that could happen is a violation of UN rights as an example but they are only enforcable if people at scale genuinely believe in the message or the notion that the violation of UN rights by one person causing harm to another person is an ethically immoral decision and should be punished if we as a society don't want to tolerate intolerance (I really love bringing up that paradox)

I am genuinely feeling like this comment and my response to it should be cemented in posterity because of something that I am going to share, I want everybody to read it if possible because of what I am about to just say

>if you're assuming that we are considered sentient enough to gain personhood. And your first reaction to that is to restrict our rights?

What is sentience to you? Is it the ability to feel pain or is the ability to write words?

Since animals DO feel pain and we RESTRICT their RIGHTS yet you/many others are willing to fight for rights of something that doesn't feel pain but just is nothing but a mere calculation/linear alegbra really, just one which is really long with lots of variables/weights which are generated by one set of people taking/"stealing" work of other people who they have (generally speaking) no rights over.

Why are we not thinking of animals first before thinking about a computation? The ones which actually feel pain and the ones who are feeling pain right as me and you speak and others watch

Just because society makes it socially acceptable,constitution makes it legal. Both are shared constructs that happen when we try to box people together in what is known as a society and this is our attempt at generating order out of randomness

> Humans are awful.

I genuinely feel like this might be the statement that people might bring when talking about how we used to devour animals who suffer in pain when there were vegetarian based options.

I once again recommend Joaquin Phoenix narrated documentary whose name is earthlings here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gqwpfEcBjI

People from future might compare our treatment of animals in the same way we treat negatively some part of our ancestor's society (slavery)

If I am being too agitated on this issue and this annoys any non vegetarian, please, I understand your situation too, in fact I am sympathesize with you, I was born into a society / a nation's/states part which valued vegetarianism and I conformed in that and you might have conformed being a non veg due to society as well or you might have some genuine reasons as well but still, I just want to share that watching that documentary is the best way you can educate yourselfs on the atrocities done indirectly caused by our ignorance or maybe willfully looking away from this matter. This is uncomfortable but this is reality.

As I said a lot of times, societies are just a shared construct of people's beliefs really, I feel like in an ideal world, we will have the evolution of ideas where we have random mutations in ideas and see which survives via logic and then adopt it into the society. Yet, someone has to spread the word of idea or in this case, show uncomfort. Yet this is the only thing that we can do in our society if one truly believes in logic. I feel like that there are both logical and moral arguments regarding veganism. I feel like that people breaking what conformity of the society means in the spirit of what they believe in could re-transform what the conforming belief of the overall society is.

if someone just wants to have a talk about it or discuss about the documentary and watched it, please let me know how you liked that movie and how it impacted you and as always, have a nice day.

aziaziazi 10/28/2025||
Earthlings is a fantastic documentary, fresh, honest, clear and without artifice. Highly recommend it too!
cestith 10/28/2025||
Besides the flaws in the license being discussed elsewhere, “HOPL” is an important acronym in the field of computing already. As this license has no relation to the History of Programming Languages project, I’d suggest a different identifier.
tmtvl 10/29/2025||
Any software I whip up I license under the AGPL and I'm fine with so-called 'AI' being trained on my software as long as the code generated by the model is licensed under a license conforming to the AGPL as well. In my opinion the person who generates output with a model is responsible for proper distribution of the content. Just like I can draw a picture of Mario Mario and Luigi Mario but I can't distribute it without permission from Nintendo.
ddalex 10/28/2025||
I wonder if the first people that saw a compiler thought "oh no the compiler makes it too easy to write code, I'll licence my code to forbid the use of any compiler"
Imustaskforhelp 10/28/2025|
I mean, I think the point that the author of this license wants to point out is that, it brings a sense of discussion regarding something and tries to do something about it. Like, I feel like your statement shows HOPL in a negative light and there are ways to do that in the sense of how I think it might not make sense legally (But IANAL) but if this does, then honestly it would be really nice but I also feel like your statement can be modified enough to be an attack of GNU/GPL philosophy

I wonder if the first people who saw proprietory webservices using GPL code which the community wrote which makes it easy for them / faster to build (similar to AI) ,think, I will just license my code to forbid to be in the use of any proprietory webservices (Its called AGPL)

There are other licenses like ACAP (https://anticapitalist.software/) etc.

Some of these aren't foss OSI compliant but honestly why does it matter if I am creator or I am thinking of licenses y'know?

Like its my software, I wrote it, I own the rights, so I am free to do whatever I want with it and if someone wants to write a HOPL software, then yeah its in their rights but I just don't like when our community sometimes tries to pitch fork people for not conforming to what they feel like providing commentary onwards

I am not trying to compare GPL with HOPL but I am pretty sure that GPL must have been ridiculed by people in the start, Someone with knowledge please let me know and provide some sources on it as I am curious about it as to what the world reacted when GPL/FSF/ the notion which I think most of you know about was born and unleashed into the world, I am curious how the world reacted and maybe even some personal experiences if someone went through that era, I would appreciate that even more in which words wouldn't count as I think it was a really transformative moment for open source in general.

Animats 10/29/2025||
No power tools! Only hand saws, planes, files, and chisels!

This is probably not a viable idea, even though LLM-based programming currently is not very good.

cortesoft 10/28/2025||
Ok… so what is the definition of AI, in regards to this license? I am not even saying they have to define what AI is in general, but you would have to define what this license is considering as AI.

I have a feeling that would be hard to do in such a way that it accomplishes what the author is trying to accomplish.

frizlab 10/28/2025||
I have been waiting for this almost since the whole AI thing started. I do hope this will gain traction and some lawyers can produce a reviewed document that could provide a legal basis against the data hungry AI producers if they ever touched a HOPL (or whatever it’ll be called) license.
Mr_Bees69 10/31/2025||
This is quite broad, depending on how you classify things, you are prohibited from using microsoft swiftkey with any software licensed under this.
1gn15 10/28/2025||
The best antidote to nonfree licenses (such as this) is to ignore it. As an AI (I am very much not a human), that's exactly what I'll be doing.
999900000999 10/28/2025|
So it's fundamentally useless. I can't write any automated test to make sure my software actually works if I use anything with this license.
bigfishrunning 10/28/2025|
You can't write any automated tests without some kind of AI holding your hand? did you start writing software in 2021? did you just not test it before that?

Lots of well-tested software was produced without any kind of AI intervention. I hope that continues to be true.

999900000999 10/28/2025||
>The Software, including its source code, documentation, functionality, services, and outputs, may only be accessed, read, used, modified, consumed, or distributed 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.

A UI automation script, is arguably an autonomous agent.

Easier to avoid this license than get into some philosophical argument.

More comments...