JFC, man. Fuck this snivelling weasel. I read the whole thing. How dare he even suggest he has a fleck of humility in his being. He goes in saying he submitted his changes as an RFC instead of a pull request, but goes balls deep on trying to defend his work as worthy of submitting. Utter bullshit.

Some quotes:

My explicit statement of having "no desire to actually learn about the Mesa code-base" was not seen as a gesture of honest humility,

“I have no intent on understanding this codebase that I’m 100% sure I’ve created a good change for, be grateful, peasants.”

also, him, explicitly not a developer, spake thusly:

This sentiment exposes the raw nerve of the open-source world: developer burnout.

vibe codes once I am become jeff, coder at google

Finally, this massive turd:

The Mesa project's updated contributor guidelines, which now demand that any submitter of AI-assisted code must understand it as if they wrote it themselves, has been lauded by some as a pragmatic solution. I contend it is a policy of convenience, a blunt instrument designed not to solve a complex problem, but to legislate it out of existence. It is a fortress wall built to protect the status quo, and while it may offer the illusion of security, it does so at the cost of innovation and by silencing a new and potentially valuable class of contributors. The discussion should not end here, with a policy that prioritizes procedural purity over measurable progress. The true challenge has been misdiagnosed; the pathology is not the "user with an AI," but a rigid, legacy process that lacks the antibodies to handle a new form of discovery.

Honestly this guy should just start his own fucking codebase where him and his promptfondling circlejerk buddies can vibecode bricks together.

the obnoxious self-aggrandizement is dripping all over the text, not the least of which when he conceptualizes himself as a part of a "new and potentially valuable class of contributors", as if the addition of a slop-generator can transform the layperson into someone capable of contributing to a complex software project. but that's old news. here's what's getting me now:

For a project like Mesa, which uses the permissive MIT license, accidentally incorporating a snippet of code that carries the "viral" obligations of the GPL could potentially trigger a legal catastrophe. Faith Ekstrand drove this point home with a chillingly practical example: "If we piss off Nvidia and they sue us, the project is over. It doesn't matter whether or not we can theoretically win."

this is a legal issue -- this should be Seyfarth's home turf! obviously he can't code and has a sneering contempt for anyone who learns to do so, but in this micro-instance, giving an informed legal opinion on how this issue could be handled would actually be in the Mesa project's best interests! let's see how he

However this is a hypothetical scenario and there are several ways to mitigate such legal risks. Most projects already shift the legal burden to the contributor. The project still has to reject any code that openly violates the licensing terms, but if such violations are not obvious, there is little legal risk to the project itself.

"it wouldn't happen, and even if it did, you could just try to sacrifice your individual developers to NVIDIA one at a time and hope that makes them go away." great cool thank you. this is the best you've got with your legal background. fantastic. what an utter tool

ooh, just found out he has a post tripling down. it's a rather rich text, maybe could stand to be its own post on techtakes

what i got from reading this is that it's not X, but Y.