<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>FOSS on cperrin.xyz</title>
    <link>https://staging.cperrin.xyz/en/tags/foss/</link>
    <description>Recent content in FOSS on cperrin.xyz</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 23:07:43 +0200</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://staging.cperrin.xyz/en/tags/foss/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>What can we do about the vibe committer</title>
      <link>https://staging.cperrin.xyz/en/2026/06/19/what-can-we-do-about-the-vibe-committer/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://staging.cperrin.xyz/en/2026/06/19/what-can-we-do-about-the-vibe-committer/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I recently had a discussion on Mastodon that was sparked by a post of the Software Freedom Conservancy about the &lt;a href=&#34;https://sfconservancy.org/llm-gen-ai/llm-backed-generative-ai-recommendations.html&#34;&gt;handling of LLM-gen-AI submissions&lt;/a&gt;. There are many people who are very opposed to letting LLM-generated code into their projects. This is an understandable standpoint given concerns like legality, unethical sourcing, resource usage, and concentration of power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from that, it is completely reasonable for a maintainer to set rules for submissions. A FOSS license doesn&amp;rsquo;t mean that a maintainer even has to interact with anyone. It just provides the source.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
