479

This AI Startup "Copied" an Open-Source Project and Got Half a Million Dollar Funding by Y Combinator (news.itsfoss.com)

submitted 2 months ago by RobotToaster@mander.xyz to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

76 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 7 points 2 months ago

Not at all, really. Forking is fine and building a business off of it is fine (I don't personally see the value in it but apparently Y Combinator saw fit to invest in this so what do I know). Where they fucked up was replacing the existing free software license with some "AI" generated mumbo jumbo, because they were "too busy building" to "bother with legal."

You didn't have to "bother" with creating a license, because there already was one. No one in free software should be rolling their own custom license (GPT generation aside) because there exist perfectly good ones already.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It doesn't matter what the license chatgpt spat out says. If they forked from a Foss base repo, then all of the code they make will be FOSS too. This is great.

[-] Markaos@lemmy.one 8 points 2 months ago

No, they are just in violation of the original license. That doesn't mean they have to comply with it by properly open sourcing the project. Generally it's also OK to just delete everything.

There were plenty of cases where commercial software included open source stuff in a way that violated its license, and the accepted way to fix the license violation was for the software/hardware vendor to stop using the violated project going forward. Usually they don't even have to for example scrub old firmware downloads that improperly included FOSS bits.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online -1 points 2 months ago

The damages causes to the developers are equal to the profits made by the company that took their code and made improvements to it, without sharing it upstream as legally required

[-] Markaos@lemmy.one 3 points 2 months ago

OK, cool. Just remember that the only entity who can sue in this situation is Microsoft (because when you contribute code to VS Code, you must sign a CLA that says you give Microsoft full perpetual rights to distribute your code under any license they wish - it is Microsoft who then "graciously" releases your code under a copy left license while also building their proprietary version of VS Code using it).

And Microsoft cannot use the code if it gets released under a copyleft license - that wouldn't allow them to build their proprietary build with it. So the only one who can do anything has less than zero (because it would improve only the FOSS forks, which are meant to be inferior) interest in making these guys publish the source code as proper FOSS.