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

Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 323 posts

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#51

Post by Sanzig »

phkahler wrote: post #25
wolttam wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't appear to be AI posturing, did you read the tweet? It is about one product blatantly, directly ripping off another.

>> This doesn't appear to be AI posturing, did you read the tweet? It is about one product blatantly, directly ripping off another. Then it shouldn't reference AI or Vibe coding.

The tweet was fine - it was directly addressing Corgi's claim that they had "vibe coded" DataRoom when they had copied and pasted it from Papermark. The problem is the OP chose to perform a contextectomy on the tweet and make it look like it's making a completely different argument.

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#52

Post by DiabloD3 »

lenerdenator wrote: post #35
gryfft wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You edited your comment while I was replying, and merely copying the license does not cover many other possible restrictions.

I didn't edit anything. I did choose the wrong word, though. Comply, not copy.

So, by definition, you did edit it to change the typo.

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#53

Post by JackFr »

elric wrote: post #33
carlosjobim wrote: post #23

[flagged]

What a load of crock. FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans . Some later licenses made the license less amenable for sharing with corporations because some authors didn't feel like they were being treated fairly. Some authors today have similar feelings about their code being used by Gen AI. It is perfectly fine for authors to want to place restrictions on how they want others to u…

> FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans.

That may be true, but I don't think it's obvious. What don't I know about the history of OSS?

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#54

Post by tzs »

gryfft wrote: post #15
lenerdenator wrote: post #5

Unless you don't copy the license terms, it's impossible to "steal" open-source code. That's... sort of the point.

Many open source licenses levy restrictions upon the acceptable use of the software. Those restrictions may include attribution requirements, up to and including a requirement to include the license when redistributing the code; they may forbid using derivative works for commercial purposes; they may require the downstream project to utilize the same license. Open source is not the same thing as "anybody can do anyth…

> they may forbid using derivative works for commercial purposes

The most widely used definitions of “open source” do not allow such a prohibition.

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#55

Post by blourvim »

License in question: https://github.com/papermark/papermark?tab=License-1-ov-file It is AGPL, basically means:

You have to share the source code even when the user interacts over the network with the software.

The project which uses that code, must also be AGPL,

There are ways to separate it and go around it, for example, using an AGPL auth server shouldn't affect the code where your business logic lives

I am sure they could have found a way to design their product to be compliant, especially following past drama.

This is assuming the code is indeed copied, since we don't know that for sure, it does look very similar but I am not sure how that is enforced

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#56

Post by bogwog »

xyzsparetimexyz wrote: post #4

Don't care. Competition is good for consumers.

It is, but this isn't competition. This just copyright infringement.

Competition would be if these people created their own software, possibly innovating and improving it in the process. That would encourage Papermark to improve their own offering, and would create an environment where these businesses are economically incentivized to improve the product or service.

Nobody is incentivized to improve the software in question here. If copyright law doesn't protect anything, then improving your product is helping the competition and potentially hurting your business. Same is true if you're the people who did the infringement.

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#57

Post by ludamad »

jazz9k wrote: post #48
elric wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a load of crock. FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans . Some later licenses made the license less amenable for sharing with corporations because some authors didn't feel like they were being treated fairly. Some authors today have similar feelings about their code being used by Gen AI. It is perfectly fine for authors to want to place restrictions on how they want others to u…

Developers gave their code out for free, but want to discriminate against people they don't like from using it in ways they dislike. The 'spirit of free software' is bullshit. It's software authoritarianism disguised as a noble cause.

Even so, what's wrong with this? They told you up front that they're going to discriminate. Students can use the code freely, businesses may struggle. People don't need to be fair.

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#58

Post by Sanzig »

jknoepfler wrote: post #50
Sanzig wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the title that the OP chose is so sufficiently misleading that I think this one will need to be get changed by the mods. Seitz isn't opining on the ethics of vibe coding in his tweet, he's pointing out that Corgi literally just stole Papermark's AGPL codebase and passed it off as vibe coding.

It's nearly word-for-word the content of the tweet. Right at the top. It isn't misleading unless you literally don't even bother to open the linked content. Just ban users who comment without reading, I think that would go further to keep the quality of discussion high. The number of bots/trolls responding to the title without reading the content and missing the point entirely is astounding, honestly, and I don't thi…

Ideally yes, but we know people don't RTFA - there's a reason that initialism dates back to early Slashdot.

The paraphrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting to convert it to ragebait. Had the OP gone with something like "you didn't vibe code it, you plagiarized Papermark's open source project" (may need some editing to fit under the character limit) it would have at least been more true to the original tweet.

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#60

Post by brookst »

jknoepfler wrote: post #50
Sanzig wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the title that the OP chose is so sufficiently misleading that I think this one will need to be get changed by the mods. Seitz isn't opining on the ethics of vibe coding in his tweet, he's pointing out that Corgi literally just stole Papermark's AGPL codebase and passed it off as vibe coding.

It's nearly word-for-word the content of the tweet. Right at the top. It isn't misleading unless you literally don't even bother to open the linked content. Just ban users who comment without reading, I think that would go further to keep the quality of discussion high. The number of bots/trolls responding to the title without reading the content and missing the point entirely is astounding, honestly, and I don't thi…

It’s an intentionally misleading title, using “you” to imply that the reader is guilty of theft.

An honest title would be “Corgi didn’t vibe code it, they stole Papermark’s AGPL code”.

Sure, people should read links, but when a writer posts ragebait for engagement, there’s plenty of blame to go around.

Post reply on HN