6 ms·

The problem here is not that they stole the idea, it's that they literally just took an open-source codebase and filed off the serial numbers to claim it as the

by kibwen 2y ago

The problem here is not that they stole the idea, it's that they literally just took an open-source codebase and filed off the serial numbers to claim it as their own proprietary work, and they did so in the most comically inept way possible. From the OP: PearAI offers an AI coding editor. The startup’s founder Duke Pan has openly said that it’s a cloned copy of another AI editor called Continue, which was covered under the Apache open source license. But PearAI made a major misstep: PearAI originally slapped its own made-up closed license on it, called the Pear Enterprise License, which Pan admitted was written by ChatGPT.

CharlieDigital 2y ago
It doesn't matter so long as they didn't violate any licenses. Where the product starts and where it ends will be two totally different endpoints that are sure to diverge once they find their domain and business model.
- mlyle 2y ago
  Starting off by making an obviously hamfisted move matters. It's a headwind to overcome. Is it possible to overcome? Sure. Yes, you can heal after shooting yourself in the foot. (And, of course, removing attribution is violating licenses). However, they're unlikely to face litigation for this. The possible legal consequences aren't the actual consequences they're likely to face.
  - pj_mukh 2y ago
    AFAICT, the attribution's been there since the beginning on their GitHub? (see: About section)[1]. I agree adding their own license was hamfisted, but honestly, if I'm funding a company I hope they would spend less than <$1 on legal and licensing initially. The first order of business is almost always proving whether your business should even exist. https://github.com/trypear/pearai-app?tab=readme-ov-file https://github.com/trypear/pearai-app?tab=readme-ov-file
    - brendoelfrendo 2y ago
      I mean, whatever floats your boat, but if I'm funding a company, I hope they've spent whatever they need to spend to determine whether or not what they're doing is legal and sensible, even if that involves spending more than $1. Cloning an open source project and having Chat-GPT write you an enterprise license is not how you "prove whether your business should even exist." It's how you scam rich people into giving you money.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > I hope they would spend less than <$1 on legal and licensing initially They claim that they intended to make the project open source all along. Just keeping the Apache license would have been less time consuming than asking ChatGPT for one, with the added benefit of being a real license.
      - pj_mukh 2y ago
        Agreed. Looks like the founder agrees too[1], that was a pointless waste of time. [1]: https://x.com/CodeFryingPan/status/1840831339337302204 https://x.com/CodeFryingPan/status/1840831339337302204
    - mlyle 2y ago
      The code of note is in the pearai-submodule subrepo. Check out this fun commit: https://github.com/trypear/pearai-submodule/commit/335436b4715d7f58581dd01dc07de6b8c7480128 https://github.com/trypear/pearai-submodule/commit/335436b47... It's claimed to be accidental, but the entire commit history is full of commits saying "remove cont....." that neuter all references to Continue. They didn't even want the name in the commit history.
  - Veuxdo 2y ago
    I can all but promise you these "headwinds" that they are facing in terms of negative PR are in fact a net positive. At their stage, any press is good press.
- kibwen 2y ago
  > It doesn't matter so long as they didn't violate any licenses. It appears that they did violate the license: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html 4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions: a. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; c. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works;
  - CharlieDigital 2y ago
    That's a problem to be resolved by their legal counsel and often not even a fatal problem (e.g. work out some licensing agreement). The first job of a startup is to understand how to solve a valuable problem. If the team is solving a valuable problem, they can figure out how they want to navigate even violation of licenses. Everything else can be negotiated.
    - brendoelfrendo 2y ago
      This is such an obnoxious way to look at operating a business and helps explain why the rest of society finds tech bros to be so insufferable.
    - whiplash451 2y ago
      Sure. We can break into each other's houses. It's illegal but "that's a problem to be resolved by [our] legal counsel and often not even a fatal problem".
      - adolph 2y ago
        Why do you think there is a distinction between civil and criminal law?
- drawkward 2y ago
  If you are so inept that copying someone else's codebase wholesale is what makes you a viable company, then perhaps you aren't worthy of investing in. Unless, the investor is just trying to fund the most ruthless, least ethical, win-at-all-costs type of people, which as I type this seems like a sad but unsurprising move.
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    Unless, the investor is just trying to fund the most ruthless, least ethical, win-at-all-costs type of people Just, Devil's Advocate. But isn't that kind of a smart strategy? Not saying it's "nice", nor even how I would do things. But I'd imagine many, many people get excessively wealthy investing in this fashion.
    - drawkward 2y ago
      That's why I pointed it out. It's a perfectly legitimate explanation for this type of behavior. (And, imo, abhorrent and where capitalism-as-harnessing-greed really falls apart.) As for "smart," I assume there are some not well understood externalities to this kind of behavior, such as erosion of trust or other social ills that are hard to quantify until they reach a critical point.
      - tivert 2y ago
        >As for "smart," I assume there are some not well understood externalities to this kind of behavior, such as erosion of trust or other social ills that are hard to quantify until they reach a critical point. I think the externalities may be hard to quantify but they are well-understood by now (and are things like erosion of trust, which you mentioned). Just look at the societal attitudes towards Silicon Valley now vs. 25 years ago. VCs complain about how society now so full of negativity towards technology, but they only have themselves to blame for that. They shit the bed, and people got wise.
    - mlhpdx 2y ago
      I’ve never looked into it deeply, but as I understand it the opposite is true. I’ve read in passing that statistically the most successful sales people are kind, insightful and find ways to align with their customers best interests. Likewise, I’ve also read in passing that economies with cultures of respect and collaboration far outperform ones that are very competitive. Maybe someone has more information about those topics that me?
- T4iga 2y ago
  Except they did blatantly violate the license of the code they stole and only fixed it after being called out.
- tightbookkeeper 2y ago
  There’s legality, and bad taste.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > doesn't matter so long as they didn't violate any licenses They copied without attribution. Not okay under Apache.
kevin_nisbet 2y ago
The funny? thing is, this isn't the only YC company I've seen do this.
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  There's a really great Radiolab podcast Dealing with Doubt[0] that talks about how high level competitive poker has evolved over the years. ANNIE DUKE: Sometimes you have to be 40 percent sure. Sometimes you have to be 30 percent sure. You know, if there's $70 in the pot and you only have to call $10, you know, now you're in the 15 percent range in terms of how certain you have to be that your hand is good. JAD: In that case, you can bet this hand that you're really not sure about knowing that while you might lose this time ... MIKE PESCA: If I do that a million times in my poker life, the law of high numbers indicates that I'm going to be very much a winner in the long run. It might be the very long run, but you should be ahead in the long run. ANNIE DUKE: Because it's not—it's not about winning the hand all the time, it's about winning the hand enough of the time. Any VC is making a bet of the same nature. Because there is some intangible in the team itself, it makes sense for the VC to bet on multiples if they believe that there is a valuable problem to be solved here. Some team(s) will be more successful than others, but it's really difficult to tell at the outset. (The podcast is a great listen!) [0] https://radiolab.org/podcast/278173-dealing-doubt/transcript https://radiolab.org/podcast/278173-dealing-doubt/transcript
  - DamnableNook 2y ago
    aka “expected value” in statistical terms.
- dncornholio 2y ago
  Isn't the whole point of VC just throw money at the wall and see what sticks?
- NelsonMinar 2y ago
  I don't know anything about YC's due diligence. Is it strange they didn't catch this before infesting?
dangsux 2y ago
[dead]
adolph 2y ago
From: https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-licenses-101-apache-license-2-0/ https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-licenses-101-apache-licen... Anyone who uses open source software licensed under Apache 2.0 must include the following in their copy of the code, whether they have modified it or not: 1. The original copyright notice 2. A copy of the license itself 3. If applicable, a statement of any significant changes made to the original code 4. A copy of the NOTICE file with attribution notes (if the original library has one) [...] However, you do not need to release the modified code under Apache 2.0. Simply including any modification notifications is enough to comply with the license terms.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> PearAI made a major misstep: PearAI originally slapped its own made-up closed license on it This is comical but not the core fuck-up: PearAI failed to attribute, thereby violating Community’s license. It might be salvageable if they can convince customers they aren’t dragging everyone who uses them into a legal morass. But that will likely take more funding, and “help me pay lawyers” isn’t a great pitch. Good artist copy, great artists steal. PearAI tried and failed to copy. Y Combinator's value-adding play is in striking a licensing and indemnification deal between PearAI and Community. (If Community is smart, they'll demand an arm and a leg. They're owed it.)
DonHopkins 2y ago
I bet they ate their own dogfood by having ChatGPT file the serial numbers off for them.
freejazz 2y ago
> which Pan admitted was written by ChatGPT. What morons

by kibwen 2y ago

CharlieDigital 2y ago

It doesn't matter so long as they didn't violate any licenses. Where the product starts and where it ends will be two totally different endpoints that are sure to diverge once they find their domain and business model.

mlyle 2y ago
Starting off by making an obviously hamfisted move matters. It's a headwind to overcome. Is it possible to overcome? Sure. Yes, you can heal after shooting yourself in the foot. (And, of course, removing attribution is violating licenses). However, they're unlikely to face litigation for this. The possible legal consequences aren't the actual consequences they're likely to face.
- pj_mukh 2y ago
  AFAICT, the attribution's been there since the beginning on their GitHub? (see: About section)[1]. I agree adding their own license was hamfisted, but honestly, if I'm funding a company I hope they would spend less than <$1 on legal and licensing initially. The first order of business is almost always proving whether your business should even exist. https://github.com/trypear/pearai-app?tab=readme-ov-file https://github.com/trypear/pearai-app?tab=readme-ov-file
  - brendoelfrendo 2y ago
    I mean, whatever floats your boat, but if I'm funding a company, I hope they've spent whatever they need to spend to determine whether or not what they're doing is legal and sensible, even if that involves spending more than $1. Cloning an open source project and having Chat-GPT write you an enterprise license is not how you "prove whether your business should even exist." It's how you scam rich people into giving you money.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > I hope they would spend less than <$1 on legal and licensing initially They claim that they intended to make the project open source all along. Just keeping the Apache license would have been less time consuming than asking ChatGPT for one, with the added benefit of being a real license.
    - pj_mukh 2y ago
      Agreed. Looks like the founder agrees too[1], that was a pointless waste of time. [1]: https://x.com/CodeFryingPan/status/1840831339337302204 https://x.com/CodeFryingPan/status/1840831339337302204
  - mlyle 2y ago
    The code of note is in the pearai-submodule subrepo. Check out this fun commit: https://github.com/trypear/pearai-submodule/commit/335436b4715d7f58581dd01dc07de6b8c7480128 https://github.com/trypear/pearai-submodule/commit/335436b47... It's claimed to be accidental, but the entire commit history is full of commits saying "remove cont....." that neuter all references to Continue. They didn't even want the name in the commit history.
- Veuxdo 2y ago
  I can all but promise you these "headwinds" that they are facing in terms of negative PR are in fact a net positive. At their stage, any press is good press.
kibwen 2y ago
> It doesn't matter so long as they didn't violate any licenses. It appears that they did violate the license: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html 4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions: a. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; c. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works;
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  That's a problem to be resolved by their legal counsel and often not even a fatal problem (e.g. work out some licensing agreement). The first job of a startup is to understand how to solve a valuable problem. If the team is solving a valuable problem, they can figure out how they want to navigate even violation of licenses. Everything else can be negotiated.
  - brendoelfrendo 2y ago
    This is such an obnoxious way to look at operating a business and helps explain why the rest of society finds tech bros to be so insufferable.
  - whiplash451 2y ago
    Sure. We can break into each other's houses. It's illegal but "that's a problem to be resolved by [our] legal counsel and often not even a fatal problem".
    - adolph 2y ago
      Why do you think there is a distinction between civil and criminal law?
drawkward 2y ago
If you are so inept that copying someone else's codebase wholesale is what makes you a viable company, then perhaps you aren't worthy of investing in. Unless, the investor is just trying to fund the most ruthless, least ethical, win-at-all-costs type of people, which as I type this seems like a sad but unsurprising move.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  Unless, the investor is just trying to fund the most ruthless, least ethical, win-at-all-costs type of people Just, Devil's Advocate. But isn't that kind of a smart strategy? Not saying it's "nice", nor even how I would do things. But I'd imagine many, many people get excessively wealthy investing in this fashion.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    That's why I pointed it out. It's a perfectly legitimate explanation for this type of behavior. (And, imo, abhorrent and where capitalism-as-harnessing-greed really falls apart.) As for "smart," I assume there are some not well understood externalities to this kind of behavior, such as erosion of trust or other social ills that are hard to quantify until they reach a critical point.
    - tivert 2y ago
      >As for "smart," I assume there are some not well understood externalities to this kind of behavior, such as erosion of trust or other social ills that are hard to quantify until they reach a critical point. I think the externalities may be hard to quantify but they are well-understood by now (and are things like erosion of trust, which you mentioned). Just look at the societal attitudes towards Silicon Valley now vs. 25 years ago. VCs complain about how society now so full of negativity towards technology, but they only have themselves to blame for that. They shit the bed, and people got wise.
  - mlhpdx 2y ago
    I’ve never looked into it deeply, but as I understand it the opposite is true. I’ve read in passing that statistically the most successful sales people are kind, insightful and find ways to align with their customers best interests. Likewise, I’ve also read in passing that economies with cultures of respect and collaboration far outperform ones that are very competitive. Maybe someone has more information about those topics that me?
T4iga 2y ago
Except they did blatantly violate the license of the code they stole and only fixed it after being called out.
tightbookkeeper 2y ago
There’s legality, and bad taste.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> doesn't matter so long as they didn't violate any licenses They copied without attribution. Not okay under Apache.

kevin_nisbet 2y ago

The funny? thing is, this isn't the only YC company I've seen do this.

CharlieDigital 2y ago
There's a really great Radiolab podcast Dealing with Doubt[0] that talks about how high level competitive poker has evolved over the years. ANNIE DUKE: Sometimes you have to be 40 percent sure. Sometimes you have to be 30 percent sure. You know, if there's $70 in the pot and you only have to call $10, you know, now you're in the 15 percent range in terms of how certain you have to be that your hand is good. JAD: In that case, you can bet this hand that you're really not sure about knowing that while you might lose this time ... MIKE PESCA: If I do that a million times in my poker life, the law of high numbers indicates that I'm going to be very much a winner in the long run. It might be the very long run, but you should be ahead in the long run. ANNIE DUKE: Because it's not—it's not about winning the hand all the time, it's about winning the hand enough of the time. Any VC is making a bet of the same nature. Because there is some intangible in the team itself, it makes sense for the VC to bet on multiples if they believe that there is a valuable problem to be solved here. Some team(s) will be more successful than others, but it's really difficult to tell at the outset. (The podcast is a great listen!) [0] https://radiolab.org/podcast/278173-dealing-doubt/transcript https://radiolab.org/podcast/278173-dealing-doubt/transcript
- DamnableNook 2y ago
  aka “expected value” in statistical terms.
dncornholio 2y ago
Isn't the whole point of VC just throw money at the wall and see what sticks?
NelsonMinar 2y ago
I don't know anything about YC's due diligence. Is it strange they didn't catch this before infesting?

dangsux 2y ago

[dead]

adolph 2y ago

From: https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-licenses-101-apache-license-2-0/ https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-licenses-101-apache-licen... Anyone who uses open source software licensed under Apache 2.0 must include the following in their copy of the code, whether they have modified it or not: 1. The original copyright notice 2. A copy of the license itself 3. If applicable, a statement of any significant changes made to the original code 4. A copy of the NOTICE file with attribution notes (if the original library has one) [...] However, you do not need to release the modified code under Apache 2.0. Simply including any modification notifications is enough to comply with the license terms.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> PearAI made a major misstep: PearAI originally slapped its own made-up closed license on it This is comical but not the core fuck-up: PearAI failed to attribute, thereby violating Community’s license. It might be salvageable if they can convince customers they aren’t dragging everyone who uses them into a legal morass. But that will likely take more funding, and “help me pay lawyers” isn’t a great pitch. Good artist copy, great artists steal. PearAI tried and failed to copy. Y Combinator's value-adding play is in striking a licensing and indemnification deal between PearAI and Community. (If Community is smart, they'll demand an arm and a leg. They're owed it.)

DonHopkins 2y ago

I bet they ate their own dogfood by having ChatGPT file the serial numbers off for them.

freejazz 2y ago

> which Pan admitted was written by ChatGPT. What morons