4 ms·
> In an uncomfortable exchange between Beher and Godier on Bluesky, Beher pointed out that Godier’s Dark Hours had the same bug as Beher’s that routed people to
by Aurornis 3mo ago
> In an uncomfortable exchange between Beher and Godier on Bluesky, Beher pointed out that Godier’s Dark Hours had the same bug as Beher’s that routed people to “random fields in Mexico”.
Stealing an open source repo and launching it as your own app is a brazen move. Launching it with the same name as the original repo is just flagrant.
This guy thought he was going to ride this controversy to some free publicity for himself, using other people’s work. He flew too close to the sun and got caught out on every level.
- swiftcoder 3mo ago> Stealing an open source repo and launching it as your own app is a brazen move Do you think he stole it directly, or an LLM reproduced it complete with existing bugs?
- user43928 3mo agoI very much doubt an LLM is going to do that without explicitly being prompted to do so.
- swiftcoder 3mo agoIt is what he claims happened: https://blog.terrygodier.com/2026/08/09/mea-culpa-dark-hours.html https://blog.terrygodier.com/2026/08/09/mea-culpa-dark-hours...
- user43928 3mo agoCurious. My money is on that guy lying again. If anyone ever had AI copy an entire open source project accidentally, I would be interested to hear it. Even the widely shared reports about specific snippets being reproduced relied on the user intentionally prompting for it.
- tiagod 3mo agoHonestly, after being caught lying already, it's hard to believe him.
- voakbasda 3mo agoHe should not be believed. That’s the consequences of perjury: one lie disqualifies all other testimony.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- forgotTheLast 3mo agoUnless he shows evidence of independent re-development like his LLM agent history or at the very least git commits, I'll consider that a lie
- oneeyedpigeon 3mo agoWhether he stole it directly, by doing the 'work', or indirectly via an LLM, stealing it is wrong. If you generate something using an LLM, you have a responsibility to ensure you're not infringing on someone else's work.
- swiftcoder 3mo agoI don’t disagree, and in this case a simple google search would have sufficed, it in the more general case, how?
- satvikpendem 3mo agoThe LLM is more likely to fix any bugs it finds rather than explicitly reproducing it line by line, which it's actually quite bad at doing anyway, except for small, well-known pieces of code in its training set.
- swiftcoder 3mo agoI refer you to his mea culpa: https://blog.terrygodier.com/2026/08/09/mea-culpa-dark-hours.html https://blog.terrygodier.com/2026/08/09/mea-culpa-dark-hours...
- satvikpendem 3mo agoI find that synopsis very hard to believe, seems he's shifting blame onto an LLM instead of taking responsibility for his actions. He said he'd significantly alter the feature set, so why didn't that happen? That's a single prompt to Claude. He more than likely just told the LLM to clone the repo and ship it as is, not actually working on it in any capacity. In that case it wasn't the AI "reproducing" a bug as there was no reproduction in the first place.
- smugma 3mo agoThe author had fixed the bug. Had he cloned the repo, that bug would have not existed in the ripoff version, which points to the simplest explanation being that it was Claude, as the ripoff author said.
- satvikpendem 3mo agoDepends when it was cloned, as the article does say the author later fixed the bug, so we are unsure when it was fixed.
- Lammy 3mo ago> Stealing an open source repo It's in poor taste for sure but let's not pretend that the chosen license is doing him any favors: https://github.com/mbeher2200/DarkHours/blob/813cf85/LICENSE https://github.com/mbeher2200/DarkHours/blob/813cf85/LICENSE Hate to see people fall for the “fewer restrictions == more Free” fallacy. Profit-driven entities love when smart people publish MIT code that they can feed off of without giving anything back. Nor is the copycat project prevented from using the name without a trademark. For instance one couldn't repackage Mozilla or Blender under those names: - https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75558938&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75558938&caseSearchType=U... - https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85852073&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85852073&caseSearchType=U...
- OsrsNeedsf2P 3mo agoCan confirm. I used to hate when people published their code under MIT instead of GPL. But now that I work at a startup that competes with a few open source offerings, I love having Claude check in on their progress and port the content over.
- gilrain 3mo ago> But now that I work at a startup that competes with a few open source offerings, I love having Claude check in on their progress and port the content over. I hope that eventually you gain from society exactly what you’ve given.
- satvikpendem 3mo agoI see this sort of opinion on every AI thread and it's funny to me because that's exactly what AI is, and people don't seem to get mad about the general use case of it generating code but when it's asked to post a specific project over to license-wash it, suddenly people get mad, like, that's what AI was doing all along. And to get this out of the way first, maybe you don't use AI, but I'm speaking of general trends on HN.
- Filligree 3mo agoIsn’t it MIT-licensed? That’s not theft. The author explicitly told people he wants them to do this; the company is just taking him up on the offer.
- lapcat 3mo ago"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." It appears that this essential part of the MIT license was violated. The MIT license does not allow you to claim that you invented the software when you did not in fact invent the software.