Point 1 of the license says "All modules, add-ons, expansions, forks, compatibility patches, and derivative works based on Gizmod are referred to as “Gizmods.”". Therefore, the author of a derivative work would themselves be "the Gizmod author", as they are a sole author of a Gizmod.

This permits them, per point 4, to "remove, bypass, obscure, or replace the Gizmod dependency" (which is harmful in a fork anyway, for instance); even more, per point 7, they can even mark the original Gizmod as incompatible without notice if they consider it "Bad-faith, malicious, deceptive, abandoned, misleading, or low-quality".

Consider replacing references to "the Gizmod author" with "gizzum".

Good call. I'll fix that and make it less ambiguous in a minute. Thanks for the heads up.

Yeah, also clause 2 and 3 cancel each other out (I think).

Furthermore, license is aggressively anti-community and at that point it would be easier to have Rights Reserved.

Modification and Redistribution
You may modify and redistribute Gizmods freely, provided that clear attribution to the original GIZMOD project is included in the main mod description or equivalent primary description field.

Asset Attribution
You may not alter, reuse, remix, or redistribute GIZMOD names, branding, graphics, icons, sprites, code identity, or related assets in non-credited works.

2 is about credited works
3 is about uncredited works

how do you figure?

The anti community thing sounds like a matter of opinion.

2 is about credited works
3 is about uncredited works

That is not very clear.

but they are both one sentence long. the first one literally says the words "clear attribution"

the second one clearly says "non credited works"

how can I disambiguate this for you, Natalie?

Non credited works, can be put at the start of the comma splice instead of the end. That would be a start.

I'm comfortable with it. Thanks for the input!