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

91–100 of 323 posts

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

#91

Post by lorey »

Their response:

> The team that made dataroom has stated that they did not use any of papermark’s code and that dataroom was made from scratch with inspiration from existing document sharing softwares, and that this post’s allegations of us stealing code are false. [...]

The screenshots clearly show they copied whole pages verbatim, both design and texts. The founder, Nico Laqua, basically responding with "we didn't copy _code_" and not taking any responsibility says a lot about his and his company's moral code. It might not be enough to get sued. That doesn't make it right.

https://x.com/nico_laqua/status/2070158170937581951

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

#92

Post by rwarren63 »

blourvim wrote: post #55

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 th…

they probably need to sue to enforce this, I think this is actually going to be a larger issue than just corgi. copyright with these models really is just a mess

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

#93

Post by andor »

Chris2048 wrote: post #80

What's with this response in the Twitter thread??: "This ain't what a C&D looks like. Implies you don't actually have a leg to stand on. Upload a copy of your official legal demand (from a lawyer) or I'll forever see your company as one who attempts to bully the competition in public" -- https://xcancel.com/jacobhartmannx/status/207012600834729596... Is this just trolling?!

Look at his other tweets, he seems to be a sociopathic extremist

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

#94

Post by roryirvine »

Chris2048 wrote: post #80

What's with this response in the Twitter thread??: "This ain't what a C&D looks like. Implies you don't actually have a leg to stand on. Upload a copy of your official legal demand (from a lawyer) or I'll forever see your company as one who attempts to bully the competition in public" -- https://xcancel.com/jacobhartmannx/status/207012600834729596... Is this just trolling?!

What a bizarre complaint! It's not bullying to first try to resolve the matter informally rather than jumping straight into legal action.

Besides - who is this guy, and why does he think he's owed sight of any legal paperwork?

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

#95

Post by Vaslo »

The X link has screenshots where the two products have lots of identical pages. Is that IPable? Honestly don't know since I seem to use a lot of products that look like other products (LibreOffice, etc). But the pages for obscure things looking identical is kind of sus.

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

#96

Post by DiabloD3 »

john_strinlai wrote: post #61
DiabloD3 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> So, by definition, you did edit it to change the typo. their comment still says "copy". the comment you are replying to clarifies that they meant to type "comply", not copy. since the wrong word is still there, 'by definition' they have not edited it.

Ahh, I misread it.

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

#97

Post by blourvim »

rwarren63 wrote: post #92
blourvim wrote: post #55

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 th…

they probably need to sue to enforce this, I think this is actually going to be a larger issue than just corgi. copyright with these models really is just a mess

What I don't understand is that if a lawsuit happens, then must the plaintiff produce their source code for verification ? Even so a git tree is trivial to change into some other arbitrary code even if a license violation has occurred. I also heard if proven the consequences are that they would lose all revenue starting from when the violation has occured

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

#98

Post by civet_java »

Sanzig wrote: post #83
dwaltrip wrote: post #81

What a scumbag. The replies from Nico are insane: “Team effort” “:praying-hands (x2)” And so on… The audacity and complete shamelessness… I wonder what narrative they tell themselves.

I wonder if Nico will be feeling so cocky when Papermark gets their general counsel involved. The public Twitter shaming was clearly an attempt to resolve this without litigation, but hey, if that's how Nico truly feels, guess he gets to see what's behind door #2 (a massive bill for a legal retainer).

I am curious how this will play out legally.

Surely UI enough isn't enough to prove that source code was plagiarised?

In the event Papermark chooses to sue how will the defendant defend themselves short of presenting their own (possibly) closed source?

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

#99

Post by Sanzig »

civet_java wrote: post #98
Sanzig wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if Nico will be feeling so cocky when Papermark gets their general counsel involved. The public Twitter shaming was clearly an attempt to resolve this without litigation, but hey, if that's how Nico truly feels, guess he gets to see what's behind door #2 (a massive bill for a legal retainer).

I am curious how this will play out legally. Surely UI enough isn't enough to prove that source code was plagiarised? In the event Papermark chooses to sue how will the defendant defend themselves short of presenting their own (possibly) closed source?

Most likely, Papermark would compel Corgi to disclose the source code during discovery.

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

#100

Post by civet_java »

Sanzig wrote: post #99
civet_java wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am curious how this will play out legally. Surely UI enough isn't enough to prove that source code was plagiarised? In the event Papermark chooses to sue how will the defendant defend themselves short of presenting their own (possibly) closed source?

Most likely, Papermark would compel Corgi to disclose the source code during discovery.

I didn't realise that one could forcibly require a competitor to disclose trade secrets.

Now, INAL of course, but I would think this sort of mechanism would be quite gameable from both sides ( i) a wealthy competitor legally forcing a promising upstart to reveal source ii) a copycat working out some kind of arrangement where the code itself is licensed to them via shell company based overseas.)

Post reply on HN