My overall point is that I've already cast my die. The only thing I care about vis-a-vis the licensing of my software is protecting my users from commercial exploitation. You won't convince me or anyone to take a stand against contribution because someone might try to vibe-code an alternative. FOSS, particularly examples like Linux and Git, aren't just popular because they're free. They're popular because they're well-supported, standardized, transparent, secure and peer-reviewed. Don't take my word for it, ask anyone you know that works in a Fortune 500 business. Nobody is afraid of libcurl being erased from history because Google vibe-coded an alternative and BSD-licensed it.
So - what is the hard sell here? I'm a grown-up, I can understand the economics of the situation. How is my manager going to put me out of a job with Claude 7.0? What org structure can survive if engineers leave the company? Have you even thought this through, or are you parroting the hype machine without a causal understanding of the argument?
I can be convinced that AI is a bad thing. But you can't convince me to stop writing Open Source software because it endangers people's jobs, even my own. For fuck's sake, I publish this code free of charge for the express purpose of saving everyone the trouble of writing it themselves, as long as they follow the rules of my license. I don't owe anyone the right to be valuable to a business, no more than Pakistanis lost sleep imagining the starving residents of Redmond, Washington whose jobs they'd subsumed. Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms.
