Hacker News Reader

Comment by yieldcrv | Hacker News Reader

> Our intention was to use the Apache 2.0 license like Continue uses …. we got this right in one of them and wrong in the other. We thought the license in the root repo wasn’t that important, so we just generated one that we thought was open.

99% of the people here would make this mistake.

and to be accused of taking something if you are giving attribution would just be absurd

OSS community has some lame and immature aspects

These guys might have gotten defensive but its obvious how to communicate, to me

View on HN

> 99% of the people here would make this mistake

Doubtful. That said, some may.

> guys might have gotten defensive

Now you've lost me. It's fine to be legally naïve. But you should have the self awareness to know you're winging it. When someone gives you feedback, especially for free, it's a damning personality trait for the first reaction to be petulance.

> We thought the license in the root repo wasn’t that important, so we just generated one that we thought was open.

You know what's even easier than having an LLM generate your license? Copying one that already exists. I know a cool one, it's called Apache 2.0

This person took on (a little) additional work to do this. Since they used Apache 2.0 in one of their repos, they seem to grasp the concept of public licenses. If this truly was pure incompetence, it would have really been major.

Speak for yourself. I don't trust AI generated code, let alone a software license.

I'm sorry but if you think 99% of people here would consider this an acceptable approach to licensing I think you have a weirdly low opinion of this forum:

> We thought the license in the root repo wasn’t that important, so we just generated one that we thought was open.

No part of this sentence makes any sense to anyone remotely informed about licensing.

“making the same mistake” doesn’t equal “considering it an acceptable approach”

the reaction was attributing it to malice, when it obviously was incompetence

that should have been 1 tweet or github issue opened asking them to change it, and it would have been corrected or not. firestorm if they didnt take it seriously

instead of whatever all this drama was pre-emptively

> 99% of the people here would make this mistake.

Unless the quality of HN has dropped to such catastrophically low levels that TikTok comments section infested with bots is higher, no.

Seriously, this is ignorance at its finest.

> 99% of the people here would make this mistake.

99% of people here would… have spicy autocorrect generate some legalistic-looking nonsense, for, based on the above, _absolutely no reason at all_ (given that they’re claiming they believed that it was still under Apache 2.0)?

I mean, this place is bad, but not that bad.

99% of the tech people here think they need a license for <reasons> but simultaneously the license of code they are using is meaningless?

Cmon guy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com