[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?

[int_19h]

Does Adobe quietly erase data if you use their software in violation of their license agreement?

Last time someone tried something like that, people here were all up in arms about it.

I should also note that there's nothing in the license for the software in question that says that it cannot be used by AI.

[thin_carapace]

when users don't follow adobes conditions for software access, adobe erases access to its software, which is functionally equivalent to an open source library deleting itself. however my argument here is very much diminished by there being nothing in the license.