[thin_carapace]

to anybody who does not agree with this act, can you please explain why the creator of a freely distributed project should be forcibly obliged to follow the whims of project users? seems to me those accusing the dev of improper behaviour are the ones behaving petulantly. this man works on this project for free. do normal adults make demands of volunteers? is this the way normal adults behave when it's made clear that they didn't follow the rules correctly, like the one where the project maintainer said no ai?

[ronsor]

Normal adults demand honesty.

> but the README

His stated objections would not be read as "I will try to sabotage you" by a normal person.

[thin_carapace]

I've read your comment a few times but cannot grasp the intended meaning fully. the creator claims to have made this change clear in multiple locations and on multiple occasions, accusations of sabotage therefore seem like rephrasings of 'i didnt read anything while upgrading my copy of this library'

[int_19h]

> the creator claims to have made this change clear in multiple locations

He made his stance on AI clear. He didn't say anything about deleting users' data until after the scandal broke.

[vkou]

'You are not allowed to, and shouldn't touch my repo with AI.' seems like a sufficient disclaimer for undefined behaviour.

It's pretty easy to adhere to that rule.

[thin_carapace]

'user data' in this case refers to your copy of his software. how should software react when its explicit prerequisites are not followed? should software do nothing and allow incorrect usage, therefore potentially leading to unaccounted issues down the track? do we complain that adobe is petulant for restricting product access when license conditions aren't met?