Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 276 posts

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#241

Post by evanelias »

rickspencer3 wrote: post #66
jazz9k wrote: post #2

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.

In my experience, issues like this occur when people project ethical standards onto projects when those ethical standards are not embedded in the license. 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 i…

> 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.

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.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#243

Post by freejazz »

adolph wrote: post #190
whiplash451 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. We can break into each other's houses. It's illegal but "that's a problem to be resolved by [our] legal counsel and often not even a fatal problem".

Why do you think there is a distinction between civil and criminal law?

Certainly not because one is important and the other isn't. It's because one is prosecution by the state, and the other isn't, so they have different burdens and different repercussions.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#245

Post by evanelias »

billy99k wrote: post #15
richbell wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure why people are so upset about it. 1. It reflects poorly on YC. 2. Something can be legal without being moral or ethical.

1. I disagree 2. How is it not ethical or moral? As stated above, you are allowed to resell software based on the Apache license and integrate it into a service. The original authors haven't lost anything.

They didn't just "resell" and "integrate" this source code. Rather, they attempted to re-license it, despite not being the copyright holder in the first place. They have no legal right to remove or replace the original license.

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.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#246

Post by evanelias »

spencerchubb wrote: post #187
ayhanfuat wrote: post #98

Oh the humanity! > OHIO @parenth_: You illegally relicensed Pear to an enterprise, non open source license called "Pear Enterprise Edition (EE) license" even though Continue is Apache 2.0. Your project violates multiple terms in the Apache license. @continuedev you should sue these clowns. > FRYING PAN & @CodeFryingPan: dawg i chatgpt'd the license, anyone is free to use our app for free for whatever they want. if th…

It's perfectly legal to relicense Apache 2.0 license

Please point to the license provision that permits you to completely remove the license and replace it with a different one.

I'll save you time: there isn't one. Nor would that ever make sense in any license, because broadly granting that right in a license would completely defeat the purpose of having any license terms at all.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#247

Post by beepbooptheory »

tb1989 wrote: post #105
CharlieDigital wrote: post #68

I've been in the VC-backed startup space as a lead/principal engineer or technical advisor for the last 4 years. In that time, I've worked at 1 startup that closed a $100m C, one that closed a multi-million B, one that recently closed a $30m C, and one that started with a $8m seed. I've started my own startup and worked with founders of other startups on the side advising on the technical side (and once in a while bu…

[flagged]

Morality, economy, something about China... Perhaps the most HN comment ever on its face, but also could you unpack either of these points? No worries if not, and I can't even decide which one I would like argued for more! I would hope, (only for the sake of the rationality of your points, please do not turn this into something about political correctness), that you are not opposing the Chinese way to morality itself. For the simple reason that it is a fundamental category error! But perhaps more profound a conceit is connecting morality to the economy. Is not our best advances in economics precisely in step with it's secularization, it's scientific nature which needs not for any old ideas of the individual and her maxims or "moral" nature?

I guess, in your system here, what is this thing, economy, that could be harmed by a "lack of morality"? How do we understand it? Which came first? Why and how could there be this connection? I am far from an expert, but this seems to fly in the face of the whole spectrum of thought in this area, from Smith to Marx to Friedman. But would be very interested to understand it more if you have some literature.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#248

Post by slenk »

segmondy wrote: post #78
CharlieDigital wrote: post #68

I've been in the VC-backed startup space as a lead/principal engineer or technical advisor for the last 4 years. In that time, I've worked at 1 startup that closed a $100m C, one that closed a multi-million B, one that recently closed a $30m C, and one that started with a $8m seed. I've started my own startup and worked with founders of other startups on the side advising on the technical side (and once in a while bu…

Wild take, copying matters. If you have a great idea, and no capital and I copy you and have more capital (money, social), I can deploy my capital to crush you in the market. This very idea that ideas don't matter is hogwash, you can say that idea alone is not enough, but it matters. This is why big companies sometimes get sued by the govt, they copy smaller companies ideas, add it into their already established prod…

That is called capitalism. Like the word you used a lot.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#250

Post by CharlieDigital »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #247
tb1989 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Morality, economy, something about China... Perhaps the most HN comment ever on its face, but also could you unpack either of these points? No worries if not, and I can't even decide which one I would like argued for more! I would hope, ( only for the sake of the rationality of your points, please do not turn this into something about political correctness), that you are not opposing the Chinese way to morality itsel…

Chinese have an open philosophy on knowledge and by proxy, copying that information and imitation. This goes back to the time of Confucius.

Point being: it is somewhat culturally specific to be "anti-copyright". I use that in quotes because it's not exactly that; it's more like Chinese culture's default is to copy and copyright is a relatively recent legal mechanism.

Post reply on HN