No it's not. Especially because this phenomenon is going to become commonplace. It is very easy to spin up two agents - one to look at the original code and write a spec for it - and the second to implement that spec. That's what's required for "legal" clean-room reverse engineering.
At the very best - these flags are sticking one's head into the sand.
Why not? A minesweeper program is also a buggy/incomplete photoshop implementation if you stretch the semantics enough.
At some point mere hype becomes outright misrepresentation, and I'm hearing the same weasely language here as I did from the blockchain scammer crowd.
What? That's not even remotely close to this situation.
You can only stretch anologies so far - tying a bow around the Earth with one doesn't make much sense.
agreed, but now we have a baseline before digging into them grey areas, and I know you're not completely crazy by rejecting this example (such people exist).
Where do you think the line exists in this situation? If a software is unusable, to the point that it's difficult to imagine the creator (or its proponents) actually tried using it - Can that be dismissed as simply incomplete, or buggy?
You may as well have said "it's kinda like Goldilocks and the three bears." Yes, it is KINDA like that... insofar as both happen on the planet Earth. But drawing connections between them is nonsensical.
Please address the second paragraph, no analogy there.
> You may as well have said "it's kinda like Goldilocks and the three bears."
That story is used allegorically all the time, rarely involving talking bears, so I'm not what you mean.
I truly wonder what's to become of copyright.