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