The human only public license

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Motivation and Goals

  • License is presented as a draft to spark discussion, not a polished legal instrument or mass‑adoption attempt.
  • Core concern: future internet dominated by bots and AI‑generated content, with human interaction mediated and controlled by large platforms and identity authorities.
  • Supporters value explicitly human‑only spaces and see symbolic licenses as a way to coordinate communities and signal norms, even if niche.

Vagueness, Scope, and Practicality

  • Wording (“AI”, “machine learning”, “autonomous agents”, “chain of use”) is criticized as undefined and over‑broad.
  • Could plausibly forbid: IDE autocomplete, code indexing, virus scanners, search engines, UI automation, and even normal hosting on GitHub or use of Spotlight/Elasticsearch.
  • Indirect‑use language around backends and services is seen as unworkable and trivially circumvented (e.g., via proxies or copy‑pasting outputs).
  • Many conclude it would be easier to avoid HOPL‑licensed software than to reason about compliance.

Enforceability and Legal Questions

  • Multiple commenters argue it’s essentially unenforceable: bad actors and large AI companies already ignore standard copyright and licenses.
  • Debate over whether “AI reading/training on” lawfully obtained code can infringe copyright; US decisions so far tend toward fair use for training.
  • Some jurisdictions (e.g., cited Singapore law) explicitly void contract terms that restrict computational data analysis.
  • Others suggest a terms‑of‑service / contract‑law approach or unjust‑enrichment claims might be more promising than copyright alone, but still uncertain.
  • Robots.txt and website T&Cs as binding on crawlers are described as legally shaky and context‑dependent.

Open Source and Licensing Compatibility

  • HOPL is not OSI‑compliant: it discriminates by field of endeavor (AI use) and so can’t be treated as standard open source.
  • “Copyleft” label is called incorrect; it’s share‑alike without a source‑sharing obligation.
  • Incompatibility with GPL/AGPL and ecosystem packaging (e.g., Linux distros) is highlighted. Retro‑relicensing existing MIT/BSD projects is seen as unrealistic.

Philosophical and Political Tensions

  • Some see human‑only licensing as reactionary or “Luddite”; others defend resistance to certain kinds of technological change as legitimate.
  • Disagreement over whether it’s ethical to restrict others’ ability to use tools (including AI) on publicly shared works.
  • Thread divides between optimists who applaud “trying something” and pessimists who view such efforts as naïve given AI’s economic and political backing.