turns out Continue was less than happy with their own backer YC paying another company to take credit for their work
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1490 readers
18 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
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.
That's amazing. Do you think they crtl-f'd the name changes or ChatGPT'd them?
founder mode, mate
I endorse this usage, and am now 100% in favour of popularising "founder mode" as a term if we do this
That startup founder. Is he okay?
He’s alright but his clone is taking this personally.
[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?
The way he admitted it was hilarious too
Apache explicitly allows this. I don't get why OSI bros are endlessly surprised by this.
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.
It's a little illegal and a lot christ what assholes
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.
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.