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

151–160 of 323 posts

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

#151

Post by manwithopinions »

liendolucas wrote: post #148
manwithopinions wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re a business that deals in documents from external customers / partners, you use a data room like DocSend (by Dropbox) to share and receive documents with access management, analytics, auditing etc. Papermark is an open source alternative to DocSend. Papermark is very popular, as it is a much more cost effective alternative to DocSend — self-host or hosted. Corgi is a YC backed insurance startup that sells in…

Thanks for the insight. So regarding what you explained above, is Corgi's fate supposed to be similar to Delve's? Or are those numbers so big/important for YC that they won't be banned?

Not necessarily. Delve did a lot of bad things, the primary reason for their removal was misrepresentations they made to other YC startups, i.e: YC startups paid them for security audits that turned out to be bunk which caused a big headache for their customers. Basically, the rest of YC wanted them gone for causing widespread chaos.

Delve’s first drama was around copying from other startups, it was later that their betrayal came out. Corgi is currently at the copying from other startups stage… one might choose to believe there is a path they’re following rather than this being a one off.

For example, I outlined in another comment how their product is not what it seems, it is not traditional insurance, it takes advantage of an esoteric piece of insurance regulation. They’re doing very aggressive underwriting without any of the traditional insurance regulatory protections applying to them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48672328

Someone might believe that their conduct + very high risk product + exposure to a large number of YC companies means they’re very similar to Delve.

Plus the founders are at the top of another funnel… Forbes 30 under 30. 30u30 is practically a kiss of death.

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

#153

Post by LoganDark »

NikxDa wrote: post #130

From what I can tell, his argument seems to be that 1. no code was manually copied by a developer, and 2. all software in the same space copies off of each other But the big giveaway here is the exact same layout/copywriting on both products. Telling an LLM "write this product and build a 1:1 clone" is still copying by all sensible definitions. The fact that he argues nothing was copied is ridiculous.

He argues no code was copied.

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

#154

Post by elric »

brookst wrote: post #67
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…

I’m old and I don’t recall FOSS being about truly free, truly open, just not for some categories of use. In fact I seem to recall FOSS advocates denouncing licenses that put limits on who could use the software or for what purpose. This “it was always only for humans” take is new to me.

Surely "only for humans" is the obvious default given that there were no AI megacorps when these licenses were written?

Surely it's always been obvious that the person doing the sharing is the one to decide on the terms of the sharing? Maybe I want to share my cake with you but not with someone I don't like? How is that not my decision to make?

I'm absolutely fine with people having different sharing philosophies. Different licenses with different nuances are a thing. But I don't like this take that everything that was shared is automatically retconned to be included in AI training data. That's not the spirit in which I shared my stuff. Maybe that's the spirit in which you shared yours, and I respect that.

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

#155

Post by sublimefire »

Being a bot of a devils advocate here. What I do not understand if it just looks similar, or implements the same features, or the code is actually copied and modified, i.e. the source is obviously from papermark. I think interfaces can be copied, thinking along the lines of implementing a protocol or a feature, so that would be legit. The UI looks very similar but if this is a totally different code then what? is it copyright infringement on the look and feel of the papermark brand?

Clearly it should be an issue for the investors anyway as it “looks” like a copy in the tweet alone, it might mean this code will eventually become available from download to comply with agpl, which in turn wipes out any moat.

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

#156

Post by wongarsu »

lorey wrote: post #91

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…

> It might not be enough to get sued

Mostly because open source projects rarely sue. If you did this to a more litigious company there's a decent chance they would sue, and I'd give them about a 50/50 chance of winning.

Hard to say whether this would be ruled as copying the creative and artistic elements, or just the methods of operation. Copying features is fine, wholesale copying UX quickly becomes copyright infringement

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

#157

Post by mlnj »

manwithopinions wrote: post #135
nfw2 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are worth 3 billion after two years so it seems like they are doing all right with their strategy although I'm old now and don't want to do that

They’re not really, it’s just the YC hype cycle. The business is selling insurance to other YC startups with some AI flair. They’re not even the first YC startup to do this, a previous YC insurance startup was acquired a few years ago for ~$1bn. So, they’re worth 3x the exit of the exact same company… because of what, AI? The fact that they’re cloning other software to release SaaS products is extremely bearish. Why…

Listened to the founder on 20VC episode talk endlessly about sleeping and showering in the office and comparing their insurance company to Alexander the Great and Napoleon.

Silicon Valley is just so disconnected from reality.

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

#158

Post by oefrha »

liendolucas wrote: post #140

Can someone give a bit more of context on this thread? I have no idea who Nico is nor what Papermark is or does. As an aside thought not related to the thread: Is it my perception or people are getting more used to not only vibe code things from existing solutions/projects but also "steal" open source code and do whatever the heck they want without complying morally/ethically/legally to the whole premise of open sour…

When the biggest thieves are on track to trillion dollar valuations, what do you expect. Everything on the Internet is free for all now, don’t kid yourself.

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

#159

Post by eloisius »

stevekemp wrote: post #150
overfeed wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am curious how this will play out legally I am curious if/how YC will handle this to get ahead of earning a reputation of being a den of scammers - a few months after the Delve scandal

Many YC companies do bad things, and I guess they do so independently. There may well be repercussions for the most egregious cases, but I suspect a lot of ill-behaviour simply flies under the radar. For example only yesterday I got spam from an YC company, Polymath, and I replied back asking where they got my details from - no response yet. Once I get something I'll make a GDPR subject access request, then a deletio…

I have also gotten spammed by a YC startup, but they spammed an email that I use in git commits, and lead with "I saw your fork of $POPULAR_PROJECT, pretty cool!" or something like that and then continued to pester me with their drip program even as I replied asking them to never email me again.

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

#160

Post by [deleted] »

JackFr wrote: post #53
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…

> 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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN