Yeah, I guess I need to add 'software' to this phrase to have 'any derivative software'. But overall you just pulled this phrase out of the context and opened it up to your free interpretations, which clearly contradict what is stated above: updated license terms that specifically limit StarNet usage to astrophotography processing only. So the output can obviously be processed. I am not sure why I have to write this.
Again, pulled out of context, just read the previous sentence.
Clearly states that StarNet shall not be used to aid development of other software. I don't see how StarNet is used to develop EZ Suite. EZ Suite merely uses StarNet the same way any end user can. In other words, it just incorporates StarNet into it's workflow. That's totally fine.
I explained a bit how neural networks-based software is different from traditional software in my post. This includes the explanation of how this can be harmful. I agree that this is one of more 'easy to misinterpret' pieces, but again this phrase should be considered in the context of aiding the development of derivative software.
This license most certainly does not prevent anyone from using StarNet for any meaningful purpose. Furthermore, even if you pay for the product it does not necessarily give you the privilege to do whatever you wish with the program's output, lol. Again, I explained why I am imposing some limitations on the usage in my post. I can not sell it or even receive donations for it at the moment.
Well, sorry, but things are just a bit more complicated in the case of neural networks, that's not my fault.
I am always available to clarify the license terms if needed, but I am not going to play the game of 'pull a phrase out of the context and come up with crazy interpretations'. I think the overall message is pretty clear and the license is not restrictive at all if your intent is to create astro images.
Hi, and thank you for responding. I first want to give some background on myself so you can see where I come from on this topic. I've been the maintainer of one free open source operating system and currently am on a team that develops and maintains a custom, mixed open source operating system for storage systems. Given that OSes are large amalgamations of a wide variety of open source, closed source, and commercial software components, we have to be on the ball regarding the wide variety of licenses that are involved in maintaining OSes. So, while I'm no lawyer, being able to read licenses and ensure that they are being accommodated and are compatible with how we wish to employ a given piece of software is a necessary ability of my daily job.
I believe the issue here is that you're leaning far too heavily on implied context in your license stipulations. Licenses are meant to be standalone documents that lay out each term in absolute, concise, and non-subjective language. The terms cannot silently associate themselves with some larger, unseen context and expect the reader to properly realize that connection. Doing that in a "but you know what I mean" way or expecting the reader to find this CN thread first to - maybe - realize the context introduces ambiguity, and ambiguity is what will make people either ignore the license entirely or (in my case, as a software developer) avoid the software it's connected to altogether. The obliviousness to context can be especially true when it comes to non-English speaking people and how they read and understand the terms directly.
So, when you say "StarNet shall not be used to aid development of other software."(period bolded for emphasis), that statement must be read and parsed standing on its own without the requirement that the reader already be aware of some special context. By itself and without any stated qualifiers as to what "development" constitutes or what "other software" actually is, it will simply read as StarNet2 cannot be used in any kind of software development in any capacity. So, if I'm developing software and want to use StarNet2 as a mask generation tool, I cannot use StarNet2 because doing so would be aiding the development of my own software, which would be a violation of that license term.
If your counter to that assessment begins with "Yes, but..." or "That's not what I meant...", then that is a clear indication that the license terms are being inadequately stated. It's the same deal when you generically refer to "outputs" being used to create "derivative works" or when sharing "output" with other people (by the way, what does "works well" really mean, anyway?) You do have to be explicit in how you state these terms and list any exceptions or specific allowances along with them so that the user is fully aware of what's permissible and what's not. Yeah it's pain, but this kind of rigor is what one signs up for when restrictions on use want to be conveyed.
I don't want to belabor this but I really do believe that the terms need to made clear on their own and I hope you're able to find the time to do that. It would be tragic if the software wasn't utilized in what would be an allowed manner due to an ambiguity or misinterpretation of the terms. In fact, this happening with a colleague who maintains an automated PixInsight processing pipeline is what spurred me to post. He read the StarNet2 announcement and was highly confused by how it will affect the development of his own work and if he would be "on the hook" for ensuring that users of his PI scripts also adhere to the terms regarding how "output" is used. He's not a CN user, so I asked on his behalf. I didn't bring this topic up because I wanted to argue about something 
