@gvlx Right, which is where I was going with the "nuanced stances" jab.

They knew they were making that implication. They relied on that implication for marketing. And they knew they had no intentions to actually keep the core codebase free of LLM contributions.

The thing about setting that kind of slimy precedent is that now everything you say needs to be examined as legalese, rather than understood in terms of simple good faith sentiment. Even if it wasn't about LLMs - a thing I have a hard personal boundary about - I really don't want to do business with a sketchy org that requires a baseline distrust filter applied to everything they say.