I mean the real issue I see is as maintainer I wouldn't want to open the door to that because I don't want to read through thousands of lines of AI generated code in future just to seed out the good one.
Wow, you sure showed that open source maintainer who’s boss! I bet they really regret solving 90% of your problem and giving it to you for free, now that you’ve paid the trillion dollar plagiarism-at-scale-as-a-service corp to slop out the last 10% and then publicly dunked on them.
As is your right, I don't understand the negative sentiment around this. This is an MIT license,
"... Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software..."
A maintainer is all within their rights to decide what code to accept, and it is your right to fork it. If you decide to share your fork with the world with a similar license, the world too can fork your software. That is how it worked for decades now.
People don't usually patch their software on their own, as it takes resources to do that. Even for a small change, one usually will have to recompile now and for every update,Also operating within a fork, you will get much limited help from the upstream whether that is further patches, or community support, it tradeoff within authors rights.
So now you will maintain the fork for years like the original maintainer did, right ? Or just look for another target to brag about ?
AI will maintain it.
The comments on twitter are weird as well ..
I mean the real issue I see is as maintainer I wouldn't want to open the door to that because I don't want to read through thousands of lines of AI generated code in future just to seed out the good one.
Wow, you sure showed that open source maintainer who’s boss! I bet they really regret solving 90% of your problem and giving it to you for free, now that you’ve paid the trillion dollar plagiarism-at-scale-as-a-service corp to slop out the last 10% and then publicly dunked on them.
As is your right, I don't understand the negative sentiment around this. This is an MIT license,
"... Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software..."
A maintainer is all within their rights to decide what code to accept, and it is your right to fork it. If you decide to share your fork with the world with a similar license, the world too can fork your software. That is how it worked for decades now.
People don't usually patch their software on their own, as it takes resources to do that. Even for a small change, one usually will have to recompile now and for every update,Also operating within a fork, you will get much limited help from the upstream whether that is further patches, or community support, it tradeoff within authors rights.