| ▲ | rhplus 3 hours ago | |
Their contention seems mainly focused on the heavy resource use of AI tooling. They run a service: they could impose limits on the number of submissions, builds, branches, scans, etc, and give additional usage credits to the large community projects they want to encourage. | ||
| ▲ | lucideer 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
That & the legal aspects of hosting code of questionable copyright. The LLM revolution has proven that if you have enough institutional investors, the Berne Convention doesn't apply to you, but it's sofar unclear whether that exemption from international law extends to small EU-based non-profits. | ||
| ▲ | mitxela an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |
But they don't want to. They want to provide all needs for approved projects. They want that if a FOSS project legitimately releases 50 times a day, they want to make it work. If a slop project is wasting those resources that could be used for KDE, on nonsense, then they don't. They're not a free for all, they do KYCP (know your customer's projects). | ||