Here's a glimpse of the other side of the story, a reply from the CEO a few min ago: https://twitter.com/amasad/status/1401957368510906369?s=19
But your interpretation seems way too generous when he compares it to going into your house and stealing from you.
That sounds like a a disingenuous way of admitting that he knows he’s lying.
What if you invite them into your home and then 2 years later you see they have decorated their dogs house with obvious inspiration from your own home decor.
> There is a difference between copying a feature and actually getting intro a contract, and access to the code, copying it and calling it open-source.
> As a matter of principle, when someone goes into your home and steals from you, even if it's not material, you have to respond.
EDIT: Added quote. The implication seems to be that he thinks source code was stolen and this has nothing to do with design.
[0] https://intuitiveexplanations.com/tech/replit/#is-replit-rig...
"it" could refers to the feature, not the code. That sentence is clearly ambiguous, the meaning slightly change based on what it refers to.
The most coherent interpretation of that sentence is that "it" refers to code in both instances. However, the intent of a sentence is not always the same as it's most coherent interpretation and "it" misuse is a frequent cause of unintentional ambiguity. (That's why I qualified my statement with the "implication seems to be" language.)