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

Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 75 posts

Re: Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection

#51

Post by satvikpendem »

smugma wrote: post #50
satvikpendem wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that synopsis very hard to believe, seems he's shifting blame onto an LLM instead of taking responsibility for his actions. He said he'd significantly alter the feature set, so why didn't that happen? That's a single prompt to Claude. He more than likely just told the LLM to clone the repo and ship it as is, not actually working on it in any capacity. In that case it wasn't the AI "reproducing" a bug as there…

The author had fixed the bug. Had he cloned the repo, that bug would have not existed in the ripoff version, which points to the simplest explanation being that it was Claude, as the ripoff author said.

Depends when it was cloned, as the article does say the author later fixed the bug, so we are unsure when it was fixed.

Re: Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection

#52

Post by throw0101a »

Lammy wrote: post #16
Aurornis wrote: post #11

> In an uncomfortable exchange between Beher and Godier on Bluesky, Beher pointed out that Godier’s Dark Hours had the same bug as Beher’s that routed people to “random fields in Mexico”. Stealing an open source repo and launching it as your own app is a brazen move. Launching it with the same name as the original repo is just flagrant. This guy thought he was going to ride this controversy to some free publicity for…

> Stealing an open source repo It's in poor taste for sure but let's not pretend that the chosen license is doing him any favors: https://github.com/mbeher2200/DarkHours/blob/813cf85/LICENSE Hate to see people fall for the “fewer restrictions == more Free” fallacy. Profit-driven entities love when smart people publish MIT code that they can feed off of without giving anything back. Nor is the copycat project prevente…

> Hate to see people fall for the “fewer restrictions == more Free” fallacy.

How is it a fallacy? The ability to pull in MIT/BSD code into a commercial product without providing the source is an extra freedom over (say) the GPL. The license does give end-users one more freedom than copyleft licenses?

Some folks may not like that extra bit of freedom, and want to put the restriction that you have to (re-)share the code — and that's fine — but it is less free.

Re: Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection

#53

Post by tiagod »

swiftcoder wrote: post #41
user43928 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much doubt an LLM is going to do that without explicitly being prompted to do so.

It is what he claims happened: https://blog.terrygodier.com/2026/08/09/mea-culpa-dark-hours...

Honestly, after being caught lying already, it's hard to believe him.

Re: Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection

#54

Post by Aurornis »

Lammy wrote: post #16
Aurornis wrote: post #11

> In an uncomfortable exchange between Beher and Godier on Bluesky, Beher pointed out that Godier’s Dark Hours had the same bug as Beher’s that routed people to “random fields in Mexico”. Stealing an open source repo and launching it as your own app is a brazen move. Launching it with the same name as the original repo is just flagrant. This guy thought he was going to ride this controversy to some free publicity for…

> Stealing an open source repo It's in poor taste for sure but let's not pretend that the chosen license is doing him any favors: https://github.com/mbeher2200/DarkHours/blob/813cf85/LICENSE Hate to see people fall for the “fewer restrictions == more Free” fallacy. Profit-driven entities love when smart people publish MIT code that they can feed off of without giving anything back. Nor is the copycat project prevente…

MIT license does not mean you can copy everything around the software, like the name of the product, and strip the license. There are still requirements in the license for the copyright notice to accompany the software.

Re: Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection

#56

Post by etdznots »

throw0101a wrote: post #52
Lammy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stealing an open source repo It's in poor taste for sure but let's not pretend that the chosen license is doing him any favors: https://github.com/mbeher2200/DarkHours/blob/813cf85/LICENSE Hate to see people fall for the “fewer restrictions == more Free” fallacy. Profit-driven entities love when smart people publish MIT code that they can feed off of without giving anything back. Nor is the copycat project prevente…

> Hate to see people fall for the “fewer restrictions == more Free” fallacy. How is it a fallacy? The ability to pull in MIT/BSD code into a commercial product without providing the source is an extra freedom over (say) the GPL. The license does give end-users one more freedom than copyleft licenses? Some folks may not like that extra bit of freedom, and want to put the restriction that you have to (re-)share the cod…

It gives you the freedom to make others unfree, (by distributing software to them that they can’t inspect, modify, share) so it depends on whether you care about freedom for some individuals or freedom for everyone.

Re: Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection

#57

Post by springtimesun »

owebmaster wrote: post #34
jdlshore wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s because the category is saturated, not because of the content.

So I guess browsers category is also satured and we just get to accept?

Very clever. You might have said "browser engine" to be more precise and avoid the child comments misunderstanding, but Apple deserves this burn.

Re: Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection

#59

Post by Laurel1234 »

OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #18
Lammy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stealing an open source repo It's in poor taste for sure but let's not pretend that the chosen license is doing him any favors: https://github.com/mbeher2200/DarkHours/blob/813cf85/LICENSE Hate to see people fall for the “fewer restrictions == more Free” fallacy. Profit-driven entities love when smart people publish MIT code that they can feed off of without giving anything back. Nor is the copycat project prevente…

Can confirm. I used to hate when people published their code under MIT instead of GPL. But now that I work at a startup that competes with a few open source offerings, I love having Claude check in on their progress and port the content over.

> I love having Claude check in on their progress and port the content over.

Genuine piece of shit, nice.

Re: Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection

#60

Post by thraway3837 »

lapcat wrote: post #47
thraway3837 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspected this was the case from the very beginning. Some years ago, there was another developer who cried foul and the tech press picked up and ran the story that he was unfairly kicked off the App Store. His entire developer account kicked and banned. Developers and the press were equally outraged. Yet another reason that App Store was bad. Or so we all thought. Turns out, after all the bad press for Apple, and w…

> he quietly admitted online How does one "quietly" admit online? > he shared his developer account with a relative who was making scam apps and doing bad stuff. > his account was indeed committing scams and bad stuff. This is incorrect. The story was actually covered by Daring Fireball https://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy and well as by Michael Tsai https://mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/10/apple-and-k…

Yes, your response is mostly accurate. But lets not hide under some "Popescu never lied". I'm not going to waste time really explaining the nuance of Popescu knowing that he had shared an account or payment instrument and then acted like he was 100% innocent when Apple explained to him in very clear terms what the issue was and was told exactly what he needed to do in order to resolve it and get back into good standing.

Not sure if you have some kind of interest in Popescu or a need to defend him. He defamed himself.

EDIT: Oh and since you're stuck on the "quietly admitted", not sure what's so difficult to understand about that. He cried to the press, the press ran with it, turns out he hid the fact and then only quietly admitted that he knew about the account sharing. Understand now?

Post reply on HN