I don't think the GP is calling contributor guideline restrictions a form of DRM.

I think the GP is focusing on:

> I guess we're giving up on the idea that you're free to do whatever you want with software you own? ... But I see this as no different from DRM and user hostile

If I clone an open source git repository, I should be free to point an LLM to review it in any way I choose. I can't contribute code back, but guess what, I don't want to. I want to understand the codebase, and make modifications for me to use locally myself. I don't have a dev team, I have a feature need for my own personal use.

The LLM enables that. The projects that deliberately sabotage the use of LLMs cease to be providing software that meet the 'libre' definition of free software.

I think the other way to think of it is: You're still free to do whatever you want with a the repo. The restriction is happening on the LLM's end, so ultimately it's the LLM's fault, so use a LLM without the restriction you want to avoid.

I mean if you already have a local fork you can easily delete the magic boobytrap string and then let the llm roam free.