This is the perfect example of why developers should not write their own licenses.
- The first two paragraphs contradict each other. "deal in the Software without restriction", "Permission is not granted to use this software..." etc. Which one is it? Remember that ambiguity in contracts work against the side that drafted it.
- What is "machine learning models"? Is there an objective definition of it that a judge/jury/court can understand? Why doesn't the license include that definition?
- Where is the attribution clause?
- "MIT" in the title is a copyrighted term, so the license is itself likely illegal to publish.
MIT is a trademark; even assuming it was original enough to warrant copyright protection, it was founded in 1861 (by someone who died in 1882). Even under today's expansive copyright duration scheme, any copyright would have fallen into the public domain half a century ago.
names of things are not copyrightable, even the title of books and films are not part of the copyright (that's why we see different movies come out with the same title). The reason is, there is not enough space in a title to exhibit the type of creative expression that copyright is meant to protect.
- The first two paragraphs contradict each other. "deal in the Software without restriction", "Permission is not granted to use this software..." etc. Which one is it? Remember that ambiguity in contracts work against the side that drafted it.
- What is "machine learning models"? Is there an objective definition of it that a judge/jury/court can understand? Why doesn't the license include that definition?
- Where is the attribution clause?
- "MIT" in the title is a copyrighted term, so the license is itself likely illegal to publish.