This only seems fair.

If FSF trained a net on all the code that has Copyright assigned to FSF, could it be used to ethically vibe code free software retaining the same Copyright and license? Perhaps even pointing to a file on fsf.org with all the author's names?

For whom? What is the creator going to learn from pasting code they've never read? What are readers going to learn from reading code the "author" themselves didn't read, let alone write? If you want to learn about something, reading an LLM-generated repo seems to be about the worst possible way to do it. That's not even to say LLMs are useless for learning; you could ask directly about concepts without having it write all the code for you, but this is the lowest effort application of the tool and is more of a vehicle for anti-learning than anything.

We live in a world where now using "-Wall -Wextra" is a positive outlier. :D God damn. I have ALWAYS used these options, along with "-pedantic", "-std=c99" and so forth.

I've looked at a couple of these complaints by clang-tidy, and as it unfortunately often is, all of them were false positives and overzealous nitpicks. All the complaints about memcpy and memset for example, clang-tidy could easily be improved to see that these are just fine and being dogmatic about using the "new and right way" to do things is not helpful.

In practice I've found -Wall with GCC to offer a good warning level and clang-tidy to not offer a lot of constructive feedback (besides it being very slow). For more ambitious projects, it's possible to fine-tune GCC warnings.

You can also, you know, just _use_ a program and see if there are any anomalies when running it. With some discipline to code structure, many problems get hit on the first run, and extensive testing can come a lot closer to static verification than you would think. For non-real-time constrained stuff there is also valgrind and other run-time instrumentation.

And the update message has a reference to "50µs localhost responses", indicating the comment calling the code out was directly fed into a prompt:

"Fixed Removed artificial RTT clamping that was hiding legitimate network measurements Previously clamped RTT between 0.05ms and 800ms Now reports actual values including sub-50µs localhost responses and >800ms satellite/long-distance links Added sanity check for negative RTT to detect clock issues without corrupting data This fix restores full diagnostic capability for detecting network anomalies like bufferbloat and measuring true round-trip times across all network types."

It shouldn't be legal to vibe this hard, honestly. If convicted in court, you should face punishment of, say, XXX hours doing something actually useful to society with your own two hands.