> No, this is statement of conditions under which I think the rule should apply.

Ok, not your interpretation just your opinion

> Does it mean that you can ignore ALL licenses? Or parts of licenses? I didn't say anything about corporations or hobbyists. Can corporations always ignore terms of licenses? Can hobbyists always ignore terms of licenses?

I'm not making these claims, only that in this instance it's abusive and childish from the lib maintainers to act this way and completely justified to ignore them.

> Is "don't use AI" immmoral according to you?

You are trying to back me into a corner but that's not gonna stick, all I said was "It's not the prerogative of the lib provider to dictate which tech I'm going to use"

> Well, it's not your prerogative to use that library. Creator of something does have prerogative to tell others how to use their stuff. "Instructions on how to use my stuff" is called a license. And society agreed 7that they should be honored. If you break that agreement, you should have good reasons.

It is when it's enforced by the license, which controls distribution and ownership, sure, then you use a BSD license or such, but your line of argument makes emulation, wine translation and maybe even virtualization impossible just because "Creator of something does have prerogative to tell others how to use their stuff" and clearly we have all that and it's very much legal, so a lib maintainer dictating what I use to write code is nothing less than insane.

Sorry but to me understanding of how license and fair use works is just wrong in ways I can't fix for you.