16 ms·

How much money did you give the Roo and Cline developers? From the website, this is a "well funded" startup that is giving away $20 of credits for free to peop

by Arcuru 2y ago

How much money did you give the Roo and Cline developers? From the website, this is a "well funded" startup that is giving away $20 of credits for free to people who use it. They are literally forking 2 OSS projects and turning them into a funded startup, seemingly without giving anything back.

davidanekstein 2y ago
Unspoken expectations are premeditated resentments
rvnx 2y ago
They claim: > The free tier includes $20 of Claude 3.7 credits! > Free Claude 3.7 Sonnet access included This is what really matters, much more than the IDE itself, they are all VS Code forks (and here, just an extension) Cursor it's somewhat more interesting than others because they have unlimited premium slow requests, and the fact it is free, makes it acceptable that it's not performing well compared to RooCode. At the end it's very good because the investors of Cursor agrees to pay with their money your usage of Cursor (if you accept a bit of slow down). But to be fair, RooCode, or any of the forks, it doesn't matter, as long as the investors pay for the credits. If Claude would do a $200 unlimited RooCode access, then suddenly RooCode would take a large segment of the market I guess. If this KiloCode wants to differentiate, this is what they could try.
- newlisp 2y ago
  What is Kilocode's business plan if they don't take a cut on API access for third parties?
  - stuartjohnson12 2y ago
    To use what they learn from the distribution they get from throwing a pile of banknotes in the air to become the defensibly best tool on the market, at which point they can charge above token price.
    - rvnx 2y ago
      Until in 2 years once we see new MacBook with AI chips and/or lot of memory, and that these chips can load whole offline models.
  - createaccount99 1y ago
    They mentioned in a previous thread that selling business features (SAML, SSO, idk) is their plan.
    - rvnx 1y ago
      Sounds like a plan! Here's 100M USD
jjmarr 2y ago
Maybe don't use an open-source licence if you don't want people to freely use your project's source code?? Especially a permissive one that doesn't require copyleft.
- g_delgado14 2y ago
  The same could be said of corporations who aren’t required to report pollution and thus exploit because it’s legal. Morality isn’t encoded in most agreements.
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
    AGPL encodes quite a bit of morality, and suddenly when expectations are written in clear language people stop liking it
  - jchw 2y ago
    The entire premise of copyleft is taking advantage of copyright law to be able to represent moral expectations in the copyright license. Within the limits of copyright law is plenty of room to choose something restrictive enough to fit with whatever you want. If you pick a permissive license and people use your software in accordance with that license, complaining just doesn't make sense. The license you have them explicitly allows this. It's not a loophole, it's not a mistake in the license, it's not something that the license authors didn't foresee, it is a feature. It is unfortunate when people make decisions that have legal ramifications they do not understand, but there's gotta be at least a little personal responsibility here. It's no different for code than anything else. There was a case not long ago where someone who made royalty free music changed their mind and tried to make copyright claims against people who had used their music in their YouTube videos. But can we be fair here? If you released this thing with an explicit royalty free license like that, can you really get mad because you can't get royalties that you clearly didn't expect in the first place? If you're worried that you may regret releasing your own works under open source licenses, permissive or copyleft, then simply don't do it. The downside is that you can't be a direct part of the open source ecosystem, either by using existing (non-permissive) libraries or by being adopted by other open source software, but the thing is the vast majority of developers are aware of what they're signing up for. If someone makes a million dollars off of your open source software, you can have an expected paycheck of $0.00, and that even goes if it's copyleft. The plus side of this trade-off is that it enables anyone to take advantage of your software, even if they wouldn't normally have the means of licensing a product for their use case, with very low friction, providing the maximum benefit. Copyright law, though, certainly does let you encode the expectation that "if you want to make money using this you must pay me", so if that's your expectation, don't use licenses that contradict it, especially not just because it is trendy.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pkaye 2y ago
The Kilo Code extension seems to be Apache license.
ipsum2 2y ago
It's open source: https://github.com/Kilo-Org/kilocode https://github.com/Kilo-Org/kilocode, so they are giving back. I haven't looked into what features they offer, since I'm happy with Cline for now
- bluelightning2k 2y ago
  Brb just applying to YC with a kilo fork which offers $21 in free usage and solemnly swears not to innovate even harder

by Arcuru 2y ago

davidanekstein 2y ago

Unspoken expectations are premeditated resentments

rvnx 2y ago

They claim: > The free tier includes $20 of Claude 3.7 credits! > Free Claude 3.7 Sonnet access included This is what really matters, much more than the IDE itself, they are all VS Code forks (and here, just an extension) Cursor it's somewhat more interesting than others because they have unlimited premium slow requests, and the fact it is free, makes it acceptable that it's not performing well compared to RooCode. At the end it's very good because the investors of Cursor agrees to pay with their money your usage of Cursor (if you accept a bit of slow down). But to be fair, RooCode, or any of the forks, it doesn't matter, as long as the investors pay for the credits. If Claude would do a $200 unlimited RooCode access, then suddenly RooCode would take a large segment of the market I guess. If this KiloCode wants to differentiate, this is what they could try.

newlisp 2y ago
What is Kilocode's business plan if they don't take a cut on API access for third parties?
- stuartjohnson12 2y ago
  To use what they learn from the distribution they get from throwing a pile of banknotes in the air to become the defensibly best tool on the market, at which point they can charge above token price.
  - rvnx 2y ago
    Until in 2 years once we see new MacBook with AI chips and/or lot of memory, and that these chips can load whole offline models.
- createaccount99 1y ago
  They mentioned in a previous thread that selling business features (SAML, SSO, idk) is their plan.
  - rvnx 1y ago
    Sounds like a plan! Here's 100M USD

jjmarr 2y ago

Maybe don't use an open-source licence if you don't want people to freely use your project's source code?? Especially a permissive one that doesn't require copyleft.

g_delgado14 2y ago
The same could be said of corporations who aren’t required to report pollution and thus exploit because it’s legal. Morality isn’t encoded in most agreements.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  AGPL encodes quite a bit of morality, and suddenly when expectations are written in clear language people stop liking it
- jchw 2y ago
  The entire premise of copyleft is taking advantage of copyright law to be able to represent moral expectations in the copyright license. Within the limits of copyright law is plenty of room to choose something restrictive enough to fit with whatever you want. If you pick a permissive license and people use your software in accordance with that license, complaining just doesn't make sense. The license you have them explicitly allows this. It's not a loophole, it's not a mistake in the license, it's not something that the license authors didn't foresee, it is a feature. It is unfortunate when people make decisions that have legal ramifications they do not understand, but there's gotta be at least a little personal responsibility here. It's no different for code than anything else. There was a case not long ago where someone who made royalty free music changed their mind and tried to make copyright claims against people who had used their music in their YouTube videos. But can we be fair here? If you released this thing with an explicit royalty free license like that, can you really get mad because you can't get royalties that you clearly didn't expect in the first place? If you're worried that you may regret releasing your own works under open source licenses, permissive or copyleft, then simply don't do it. The downside is that you can't be a direct part of the open source ecosystem, either by using existing (non-permissive) libraries or by being adopted by other open source software, but the thing is the vast majority of developers are aware of what they're signing up for. If someone makes a million dollars off of your open source software, you can have an expected paycheck of $0.00, and that even goes if it's copyleft. The plus side of this trade-off is that it enables anyone to take advantage of your software, even if they wouldn't normally have the means of licensing a product for their use case, with very low friction, providing the maximum benefit. Copyright law, though, certainly does let you encode the expectation that "if you want to make money using this you must pay me", so if that's your expectation, don't use licenses that contradict it, especially not just because it is trendy.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pkaye 2y ago

The Kilo Code extension seems to be Apache license.

ipsum2 2y ago

It's open source: https://github.com/Kilo-Org/kilocode https://github.com/Kilo-Org/kilocode, so they are giving back. I haven't looked into what features they offer, since I'm happy with Cline for now

bluelightning2k 2y ago
Brb just applying to YC with a kilo fork which offers $21 in free usage and solemnly swears not to innovate even harder