Perhaps.

If it's free (libre) software, then it is shared freely. Others are free to take and use it. They can also change it; they don't have to accept it as it is. The existing code can be molded to be something different, or the ideas copied and used in some new implementation.

We're free to hype it up and become huge supporters. We're free to be critical and dismissive of of it. We're free talk about these things.

We're even free to leave the software where it is and walk away from it while bitching and moaning the entire time we do so.

People aren't beholden to the author, and the author isn't beholden to the end-user. We're all mutually free of those kinds of chains.

> Does not specify if it's vibe coded or not, which I think should be normal practice now

That's just a preferential statement wrapped up in a critical package. It could be stated with a greater abundance of tact, but it's no better nor worse than stating "Doesn't have a GPL-compatible license, which I think should be normal practice now".

(We're free to act tactlessly.)