[dead]
Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode
311–320 of 418 posts
Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode
#312Since there's a lot of questions about what this means, let me explain. Anthropic has two different products that are relevant here: the Claude API and Claude Code. The Claude API has usage based pricing. The more you use, the more you pay. With Claude Code, you can get a monthly subscription which gives you a fixed amount of usage. Comparing equivalent token generation between the Claude API and Claude Code, Claude…
Yep, well said and great, sharp explanation. I think we can attribute a bunch of consternation here to drift between assumed and actual licensing terms. The actual licensing terms for Claude Code expressly prohibit use of the product outside of the Claude Code harness. If you want Opus outside of CC, the API is available for your use anytime. Some percentage of the community seems to assume their Claude Code subscrip…
> including competing products like OpenCode
I think that’s a bit more nuanced. The actual „product” is not the harness, which is free anyway, but the Claude subscription. In any scenario, that’s what the customer continues to pay for. I understand why Anthropic is doing that, but I feel no need to defend it. Just like I understand why Apple limits your app choices to AppStore, but I’m not going to go out of my way to defend their decision.
Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is analogous to when Google launched Gmail with 1GB of storage and then a bunch of third-party apps cropped up that took advantage of it to use it as a generic online file storage drive. There was GMailFS[0] and Gmail Drive[1] - this is before S3, dropbox, and a time where web hosting would give you ~10MB or so of space. Google updated their ToS and shut down accounts using their service in ways they weren't int…
Ok, bear with me here. Theory 1: the internet has been fully strip mined for all content and is now dead. See that graph of StackOverflow questions dropping off a cliff to zero. Nothing much worthwhile is being added. Theory 2: they are all unethical as fuck and definitely learning off your data. You would be insane not to - theory 1 means all your free training data is gone, but all that corporate data is fresh, rip…
Good theory and insight. Seems like that’s setting us up for some epic big co vs ai co legal battles for covertly training off sensitive and internal big co data
Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, well said and great, sharp explanation. I think we can attribute a bunch of consternation here to drift between assumed and actual licensing terms. The actual licensing terms for Claude Code expressly prohibit use of the product outside of the Claude Code harness. If you want Opus outside of CC, the API is available for your use anytime. Some percentage of the community seems to assume their Claude Code subscrip…
> including competing products like OpenCode I think that’s a bit more nuanced. The actual „product” is not the harness, which is free anyway, but the Claude subscription. In any scenario, that’s what the customer continues to pay for. I understand why Anthropic is doing that, but I feel no need to defend it. Just like I understand why Apple limits your app choices to AppStore, but I’m not going to go out of my way t…
It's way more nuanced, because the subscription is older then Claude Code - and they only started to have a problem with third parties using it after Claude Code. (And not with the release, just some time after the release)
Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
I must be alone in this but I don't think its heavily subsidized. I see their models as really overpriced. No way they cost that much. Could they really?
Yes. Their API rates are breakeven to profitable, the subscription that people are arbitraging is a 90% discount or so from API rates. There’s a reason 5% of GitHub commits are from Claude code and no other provider is above 0.1%… it’s quality, but it’s also subsidy.
Are other harnesses actually using „Co-Authored-By” out of the box?
Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode
#316Since there's a lot of questions about what this means, let me explain. Anthropic has two different products that are relevant here: the Claude API and Claude Code. The Claude API has usage based pricing. The more you use, the more you pay. With Claude Code, you can get a monthly subscription which gives you a fixed amount of usage. Comparing equivalent token generation between the Claude API and Claude Code, Claude…
Yep, well said and great, sharp explanation. I think we can attribute a bunch of consternation here to drift between assumed and actual licensing terms. The actual licensing terms for Claude Code expressly prohibit use of the product outside of the Claude Code harness. If you want Opus outside of CC, the API is available for your use anytime. Some percentage of the community seems to assume their Claude Code subscrip…
I think this is disingenuous, people want to be able to use a tool that they pay for to do useful work on their own terms because they payed for it and don’t see the differential pricing model offered by Anthropic as legitimate.
Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, well said and great, sharp explanation. I think we can attribute a bunch of consternation here to drift between assumed and actual licensing terms. The actual licensing terms for Claude Code expressly prohibit use of the product outside of the Claude Code harness. If you want Opus outside of CC, the API is available for your use anytime. Some percentage of the community seems to assume their Claude Code subscrip…
> including competing products like OpenCode I think that’s a bit more nuanced. The actual „product” is not the harness, which is free anyway, but the Claude subscription. In any scenario, that’s what the customer continues to pay for. I understand why Anthropic is doing that, but I feel no need to defend it. Just like I understand why Apple limits your app choices to AppStore, but I’m not going to go out of my way t…
Sheriff spits to the ground. One harness. One horse. How we do it' fer now on.
Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anthropic has two different products that are relevant here: the Claude API and Claude Code. No, the two relevant products are Claude API vs Claude subscription. There's no "Claude Code subscription". There's just a subscription for all Claude services at once.
The $20/mo Pro subscription only allows regular chat and Claude Code and does not allow you to export your API key without reverse engineering CC. The higher tiers allows console and direct API usage. Basically, the concept of Claude-Code having its own API tier holds.
Really? I thought API key usage was always billed per token, not via monthly allowances?
Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely there's no way that's true. The logical conclusion of that would be that every random ToS is a law that everyone must abide by, regardless of whether or not they've agreed to it.
By definition, it is exactly a law. It's known as business law. The ToS is a business contract which you must agree to if you wish to use the service. Violating terms of service is literally a breach of contract.
How can you breach a contract if you are not a party to a contract? OpenCode is not using any Anthropic services, they are just publishing some source code that seems (obligatory IANAL) to be protected speech under the First Amendment [0], if this legal argument is happening in American jurisdiction.
Re: Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode
#320This and threatening OpenClaw (now at OpenAI), Anthropic really on a roll making friends in Open Source. Previously discussed I think: Anthropic Explicitly Blocking OpenCode (173 points, 157 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46625918
Anthropic's position has been consistent from the start. Subscription plans are for first-party clients. Everyone else should be on per-token billing. That's really all there is to it. It has nothing to do with open or closed source.
You're literally spreading misinformation.
Anthropic stance has not been consistent. There are even now still articles by them telling users about unattended use like in CI which would now be considered TOS
Their stance has just been clear for a year now, even if they've changed their mind in comparison to the introduction of the sub, which significantly predates Claude code