Comment by TaLiTr
4 days ago
I can't be the only one who thinks the way they handled that is incredibly disrespectful right?
It's their own business to disallow AI contributions. But instead of adding that to the Code Of Conduct they chose to knowingly misuse a file to target a group of people they don't like.
If I want to use AI on my copy of that repo, I have to delete that file and consider if the developer has added any more of what is (by intent) basically malware to the source code. Sure the file is just an unhinged rant, but now I have to wonder if they attempted to put some prompt injection in the repo.
“If I want to crawl a website with a robots file that says ‘fuck off’, I have to ignore the robots file. If I want to use AGPL code as part of a commercial web service without creating my source, I have to ignore the license.”
Like, c’mon now. This is far from the weirdest open source restriction.
I don't see how any of those things are similar, I think you've missed my point. Those hypothetical authors are using robots and license files correctly.
Would you be OK if a repo had Visual Studio files that were designed to crash visual studio if they are used, just because the maintainer hates Microsoft? That's what this feels like, a deliberate malicious abuse of the intent that adding agents.md would otherwise imply.