I am incredibly skeptical that license is legally meaningful. (but obligatory IANAL.)

Generally speaking it is very very difficult to have a license redefine legal terms. Either this theseus copy is legally a derivative work or it isn't, and text of a license is going to do at most very very little to change that.

> It's not obvious if this will patch the clean room hole in licensing, but I'd rather see it play out in court than assume opensource is just fully dead

Are you willing to bear the burden of litigation?

I like the spirit but I do find it a bit ironic to include it in a project where almost every commit is made by an LLM

I cannot imagine that license addendum is legally enforceable (let alone provable) in most jurisdictions on earth but it is interesting.

I don't think you understand how copyright works.

Copyright can only deny the right to make copies.

If someone spends years using your software and they have learned a mental model of how your software works, they can build an exact replica and there is nothing you can do about that since there is no copy you can sue over. Said user is also allowed to use AI tools to aid in the process.

What you want is an EULA, which is a contract users explicitly have to agree with. A license file only grants access or the right to copy, it doesn't affect usage of your software.