• Sailor Sega Saturn@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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.

  • raoul@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    [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.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

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

      • Soyweiser@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

      • David Gerard@awful.systemsM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days 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.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days 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.