[_ache_]

I'm not leaving boody traps. I have the right to talk about OpenClaw or even to write the anti antropic string. I didn't delete you token usage or charge you extra boxes. Antropic did.

If tomorrow Antropic decide to charge you extra if you interact with someone who talked badly about them, I'm still in my right to talk shit about them.

[SkyBelow]

This is the same logic of 'not a booby trap' booby trap,s which sometimes do work out in the favor of the one setting them if they weren't too open about it. If your commit message is that you are talking about OpenClaw just to booby trap your repo, then I suspect it wouldn't fly, where as if you gave it some plausible deniability, a lawyer would be able to get any suit or charges dismissed.

This is all under the assumption we eventually live in a world where booby trapping repositories becomes a legal issue. On one hand that feels silly. On the other hand, we have had far less sensible cases make it to court and there is a small kernel of similarity which the legal system might latch onto.

[_ache_]

If someone doesn't want you to use AI on their repository, they state it. And if they want to "booby trap" (Antropic logic), them it's they right, you have been warned.

I can't see how you rights to use AI is prevalent on the right of anybody to write the string "OpenClaw" or any string forbidden by your AI provider.

Seriously, if the author hides it and trick your AI agent to check it, well maybe. But otherwise, it's not even a question.