I am not the author, although I find myself agreeing with several things he has said and have linked to his posts numerous times.
For me the most important thing is that something is free software. I’ve seen people advertise proprietary stuff in this community and have reported it, and nothing has been done. I don’t know if that means my reports don’t federate properly or if it’s tacitly approved by the moderators. I know in the degoogle community there are "trusted’ proprietary apps that are often recommended but this should not be the case in a free software or open source community. In any case, any rule that bans “AI slop” while allowing proprietary products is in my mind backwards.
Regarding “AI slop” I am generally in agreement with Codeberg’s policy which states,
You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by “generative AI”-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex).
I suppose “mostly” is up to interpretation but for me this specifically targets vibecoded apps where there is no or very minimal human involvement. This may be heterodoxy but I actually don’t think “an otherwise human-written codebase with a single line of LLM code” is the same thing as an entirely LLM generated codebase. I think there’s room for nuance especially if the usage is disclosed (I don’t think punishing transparency should be encouraged).
If nobody owns the copyright then it’d be public domain, which by definition is free software since you have the four freedoms with it.
The issue is that even that is legally dubious. Text generation programs have been shown to output chunks of copyrighted text verbatim, so it’s possible someone actually does hold the copyright to parts of that code, you just don’t know unless you do your due diligence on every bit of text that is output. Since neither the “author” nor the actual generator can “know” the provenance of the generated code it is very risky to assume it can be freely used.