What a load of crock.

FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans. Some later licenses made the license less amenable for sharing with corporations because some authors didn't feel like they were being treated fairly. Some authors today have similar feelings about their code being used by Gen AI. It is perfectly fine for authors to want to place restrictions on how they want others to use their work.

> Step out of the FOSS swamp, step in to human dignity.

What is that even supposed to mean?

Yo! Open Source Software works within copyright law. Your software should comply with the OSS licence you are forking/redistributing from. If you don't comply, OSS freedoms are void and it defaults back to being copyrighted material for you. Comply with licences. And enjoy the freedoms. Otherwise, you are copying from a copyrighted material. Which is illegal. Comply or write it from scratch.

Or... Be nice and ask. People tell u what to do. Don't be rude here.

I remember this Video editor software which didn't comply properly with OSS licence of FFMPEG(?). And people told author what to do. It's always cheap to be kind. Or win dumb prizes.

FOSS doesn't mean you give up all rights to your work. In this case, the software is AGPL licensed, which imposes huge list of requirements on copies - including attribution and sharing back changes.

FOSS != public domain.

This person is so dangerous that if I offer them to stay in my shaded yard in the middle of the excruciating sun, they will demand that I let them take my house as well.