> In some extreme cases, in-development feature code was being lifted straight out of our personal forks and published without attribution or lazily rewritten with LLM assistance to obfuscate its origin. The MIT licence explicitly allows this, and has no carveouts to protect against bad faith actors.

Unfortunately, the license allows this. It’s also a social issue - why shouldn’t a faster mover be able to slop a feature faster than the project owners? Who cares if it’s disruptive to them?

I’ve seen this happen on other projects and beyond rejecting the changes, I’m not sure what to do. It’s damaging morale when someone has worked weeks or months on a feature, worked with countless individuals on planning and implementation, and then someone releases a vibe coded slop fork with the last 5-10% and then takes credit as if they’re some genius doing something useful or helpful.

Ultimately the issue is manners, but when there is opportunity and generosity, the generous are going to be taken advantage of.

> Unfortunately, the license allows this.

No, it's unfortunate that the authors didn't understand the license they used. It is not unfortunate that the license allows this use since that's the entire purpose of its existence, and is one of the most advantageous to users.

Framing adherence to the license as "bad actors" is just ridiculous emotional bias. Use a more restrictive license if you want to restrict the use of your code.

LLM haters are the worst type of toxic; they will not stop until everyone else stops using it, too.

Punitively changing a license with an intent to further restrict what someone does with the code is childish. If the concern is "someone will feed it into an LLM to obfuscate it" — what stops them from doing that with GPL code?

GPL code is, by the way, ripped off on a daily basis and routinely ignored because it's bordering on impossible to enforce.