6 ms·

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

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.

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.