Love this.

It says MIT license but then readme has a separate section on prohibited use that maybe adds restrictions to make it nonfree? Not sure the legal implications here.

▲

CGamesPlay 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For reference, the MIT license contains this text: "Permission is hereby granted... to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use". So the README containing a "Prohibited Use" section definitely creates a conflicting statement.

▲

jandrese 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The "prohibited uses" section seems to be basically "not to be used for crime", which probably doesn't have much legal weight one way or another.

	▲	mips_avatar 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think the only restriction that seems problematic is not being able to clone someone’s voice without permission. I think there’s probably a valid case for using it for satire.
	▲	WhyNotHugo 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You might use it for something illegal in one country, and then leave for another country with no extradition… but you’ve lost the license to sue the software and can be sued for copyright infringement.

▲

Buttons840 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good question.

If a license says "you may use this, you are prohibited from using this", and I use it, did I break the license?

▲

ethin 6 hours ago | parent [-]

If memory serves, the license is the ultimate source of truth on what is allowed or not. You cannot add some section that isn't in the text of the license (at least in the US and other countries that use similar legal systems) on some website and expect it to hold up in court because the license doesn't include that text. I know of a few other bigger-name projects that try to pull these kinds of stunts because they don't believe anyone is going to actually read the text of the license.

▲

HenrikB 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The copyright holder can set whatever license they want, including writing their own.

In this case, I'd interpret it as they made up a new licence based on MIT, but their addendum makes it non-MIT, but something else. I agree with what others said; this "new" license has internal conflicts.

	▲	kaliqt an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The license is clearly defined. It would be misleading, possibly fraudulent for them to then override the license elsewhere. Simply, it's MIT licensed. If they want to change that, they have to remove that license file OR clearly update it to be a modified version of MIT.

▲

iamrobertismo 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, I don't understand the point of the prohibited use section at all, seems like unnecessary fluff.