I'm seeing arguments (now with #KDE) that you can't really ban developers from using LLMs because you can't tell developers what to do, but open source/free software projects have for a very long time now had contributor agreements that contributors agree to that include things like:
* Only contribute code that you yourself have written, or written under a compatible license, then credit the *original* source of the code [crediting Claude is like citing "Google" as a source in your essay]
* Don't contribute copyrighted code stolen from elsewhere
Not only can projects respectfully decline certain commits from developers, existing policies often already cover this situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes ... BSD was considered toxic and no one would touch it, and except for hobbyists, Linux was considered too dangerous to touch because of unspecified copyright code included... "At the beginning of 2003, SCO claimed that there had been "misappropriation of its UNIX System V code into Linux". The company refused to identify the specific segments of code, claiming that it was a secret that they would reveal only to the court."

ffs if you're ever in a position of saying "if I just look past all of the massive ethical concerns of dealing with this insanely evil giant corporation, I'll get something!" that itself should set off every fucking klaxon. You aren't going to get anything by overlooking how evil the evil company is except turbofucked.

Microsoft is bad at writing code but they're really, really fucking good at Embrace-Extend-Extinguish. LLMs giving developers nuggets of copyrighted code to paste in to their open source projects is developer assisted Embrace-Extend-Extinguish. It's Microsoft and the BSA against Linux and BSD all over again. #KDE #LLM #LLMs #FOSS