this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
66 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1491 readers
32 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] raoul@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 2 months ago (2 children)

[He cloned] another AI editor ... covered under the Apache open source license [and] slapped its own made-up closed license ... which Pan admitted was written by ChatGPT.

Who gives a shit, rigth?

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Apache explicitly allows this. I don't get why OSI bros are endlessly surprised by this.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They apparently copied without attribution in a manner that was a violation? I'm still looking for precise wording of the PEL.

It's very hard to violate the Apache license, but these are the sort of bozos who could manage it.

EDIT: Here is the PEL. It lacks the attribution requirements of section 4 of the Apache Licence 2.0. So yeah, they managed it.

This is a small technical violation that's easily remedied, but I understand that's what got people pissed off.

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm a little bit in the camp of 'it might be legal, but that doesn't mean it is ok'. So I get why people are annoyed. Also copying a whole project and then slamming a different license on it and going 'jobs done' very much fits the promptfondler vibe, so im not mad, more of a 'lol, of course they did' thing. But that is me.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 12 points 2 months ago

It's a little illegal and a lot christ what assholes

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 months ago

Yeah, pretty bad coverage of that by the article.

Apache isn't GPL, and it isn't an oversight that it allows closed source derivative works.

[–] slopjockey@awful.systems 7 points 2 months ago

The way he admitted it was hilarious too

[–] sailor_sega_saturn@awful.systems 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The license stuff is whatever, but Imagine seeing this sort of sloppiness in the revision history and thinking "Yeah these guys seem legit let's give them a million dollars!" We are in such a bubble.

[–] slopjockey@awful.systems 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

That's amazing. Do you think they crtl-f'd the name changes or ChatGPT'd them?

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 7 points 2 months ago

I endorse this usage, and am now 100% in favour of popularising "founder mode" as a term if we do this

[–] cwood@awful.systems 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That startup founder. Is he okay?

[–] CluckN@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

He’s alright but his clone is taking this personally.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

pivot to AI here

turns out Continue was less than happy with their own backer YC paying another company to take credit for their work