This is completely allowed under the apache open source license. I'm not sure why people are so upset about it.
If you don't want this to happen, release software under a different licensing model.
If you don't want this to happen, release software under a different licensing model.
"You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and 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;"
The founder was also on Twitter bragging about how they were the "true open source" editor in this space because they already have 100+ open source contributors, when the majority of those were just upstream VS Code contributors whose patches they had merged back into their fork.
1. It may be legally permissible, but it is impolite, to change the license away from the well-known Apache software license towards something which has not been legally vetted, and is in fact generated entirely by AI with minimal oversight.
2. There is an open question of what the supposed value add is here from the Pear team, that could not have been achieved by the people whose work they are co-opting.
3. Without a clear value proposition, the oversight given to projects by YC is called into question. I think this is the point most people are concerned by.
Which part?
Removing attribution is definitely not allowed – see section 4 c of the Apache license.
Distributing under a different license might be allowed if the new license is fully compatible with the terms of the Apache license, which would take some amount of lawyering to work out, and is almost certainly not the case with a bunch of gobbledygook generated by ChatGPT.
>Oh no, you're allowed to do whatever you want, but you shouldn't.
>>Then why is Amazon allowed to do it if they shouldn't?
>It's not polite.
>>...
The same can be said about using the Apache license and the service here in question. In fact, the difference is that it's completely legal.
The original authors don't lose anything.
The point is that you've specifically let people do something then when they do it you're upset they did it.
If you don't want them to do it, don't explicitly allow them to do it. There are plenty of licenses which would have stopped this.
I don't think we should stone adulterers. But I also think cheating on your partner can mean you're an asshole.
-- Edward Thurlow
I can't think of a more effective way to entrench a oligopoly: small companies get screwed because if they use open source the way the big girls do they get cancelled, and they can't get big because they can't use open source the way the big girls do.
That is the reason why people are forced to release under the extremely permissive licenses and hope for moral behavior by their users.
That is the reason why the smug response "You allowed me to do this" isn't sufficient.
> That is the reason why people are forced to release under the extremely permissive licenses and hope for moral behavior by their users.
No one is forcing you to release source code under permissive licenses. You're literally saying that you're doing it because you want more users. Congratulations on your imaginary internet points.
Meanwhile Bezos is very much making non-imaginary money off your work.
If the Microsoft-funded OSI does not agree, perhaps we need an OSI-2.0.
You will increasingly find developers that disagree with AI exploitation, so a new institution that is not Microsoft-funded would be welcome. That is how the original OSI started before they purged ESR.
Civilization runs on politeness and other things that flow not from our current laws but from respect for others. We ignore that at our peril.
The two are not the same.
But my point isn't about the specific license. It's about one set of people very generously doing lots of labor and publishing the result in hopes of making the world a little better. And then some other people exploiting that for personal gain with no regard for the first group.
That's a social dynamic that's at the heart of IP laws. For example, Gutenberg enabled the creation of the publishing industry. Pirate book publishers saw a way to make some money by exploiting the labor of authors and original publishers for their own gain. That moral problem is why copyright was considered important enough to put into the constitution. [1]
Focusing on the specific text of a specific license is missing the point. Both my point and the point of this article, which is why YC is taking heat for backing these guys.
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-1/...
This is a _gross_ misunderstanding of what publishing was like in the first few centuries of the printing press.
Copyright laws originated as a form of government censorship and control over the printing press in 15th-16th century Europe. Governments and religious authorities sought to regulate the spread of information by granting exclusive printing privileges to select printers. This allowed them to censor and control what content was published.
It was only when the people who were censored won that copyright was invented to keep them from killing everyone involved.
That's twice now that you've replied in a way that to me seems like favoring the argumentative nitpick over the substance of what I'm saying. If I don't reply after this, it'll be because I feel like there's not much point in writing for somebody who I can't get through to.
Printed press invented: circa 1440
US Constitution drafted: circa 1780
1780 - 1440 = 340
>hundreds of years
Hmmm.
>That's twice now that you've replied in a way that to me seems like favoring the argumentative nitpick over the substance of what I'm saying.
If your argument is based on false premises then there is no substance in your conclusion.
I find it baffling in conversations I keep having with people that someone thinks that because something is legally permissible, then it is acceptable. It's the same vein of when people cry "free speech" when they said something reprehensible, as if that somehow should protect them from how people react to their horrible statements.
I think what is driving this is one the of the fundamental problems with the tech industry and its relationship to society: the ingraining of the assumption that because something is legal to do means it is OK to do. They are not and I think there should be more outrage when something like this tries to slide by.
I guess random lynchings are a way to pass the time when you are completely powerless by choice.
[0] https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/blob/main/LICENSE.txt
In my view, if you believe it is unethical for someone to re-license your Apache code with their own proprietary license, then it shouldn't have an Apache license.
Taking a proprietary fork of an Apache licensed code base and creating an Enterprise product around it seems like a valid business move to me. My guess is that the "uproar" is not coming from the original project creators, but from outside community members who consider such things "anti-social" or whatnot, but I could be wrong.
It's not just unethical, it is clearly illegal.
If you don't own the copyright to a program's source code, you cannot legally relicense that source code! Same holds true for any other copyrightable creative work which can be licensed. This is a very clear case of copyright infringement.
Nothing in the Apache license permits the licensee to relicense the source code (meaning, entirely replace the license with a different one).
It does permit you to build derivative enterprise products, and you have no obligation to keep the source code open for derivative products. But if you do release the source code for your derivative product, any original unmodified Apache licensed portion of the code retains that license and you cannot remove it if you aren't the copyright holder for that original work.
A completely legal violation of the social contract. Or in layman's terms, a dick move.
AFAIK, people are not upset about the forking, but everything surrounding the forking, the actual business they "created" and the LLM-generated license.
Otherwise I agree, would be very strange if someone publishes a FOSS project, someone forks it and people get outraged. But I guess wouldn't be the weirdest things social media folks been upset about in the end...
1. It reflects poorly on YC.
2. Something can be legal without being moral or ethical.
One of my favorite examples here is wire fraud. The rise of electronic communication created all sorts of new possibilities for fraud, but we didn't get the wire fraud statue until 1952. There's a biography of Joseph "The Yellow Kid" Weil, a con man from the 1890s forward, where he crows about many of the things he got away with because of that. A number of the things he did were probably legal before 1952, but that didn't make them moral before and not moral after.
They can build derivative works, and apply a new additional license on top, assuming the additional license is compatible with the original one, and the original one is retained for any unmodified portion of the original work. But they cannot legally remove the original license entirely, nor remove copyright/attribution from any code that they did not write.
Think about this more deeply: if permissive licenses allowed you to replace the license entirely at will with no restrictions, that would effectively mean the work is in the public domain. There would be no purpose to having any license text at all, if these licenses could be trivially removed and violated at will.
I think it's bad not just from a social perspective (because exploitation acts to diminish the amount of open code) but from an investor one. Forking a repo, committing IP crimes, and then doing some marketing jazz hands is not obviously the foundation for a successful IPO in 5 or 10 years. Indeed, for me it'd be the opposite; I'd call it a sign these founders don't have the depth to go the distance.
It's also brand damage for YC among the more thoughtful sort of founder, which at least used to be an important concern to YC. At 1000 startups a year, though, maybe they've just decided that there's a bubble, and in a bubble it doesn't make financial sense to care about things like quality or longevity. You just shovel out whatever people are buying and worry about consequences later.