• raoul@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 month ago

    [He cloned] another AI editor … covered under the Apache open source license [and] slapped its own made-up closed license … which Pan admitted was written by ChatGPT.

    Who gives a shit, rigth?

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 month ago

      Apache explicitly allows this. I don’t get why OSI bros are endlessly surprised by this.

      • David Gerard@awful.systemsM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        They apparently copied without attribution in a manner that was a violation? I’m still looking for precise wording of the PEL.

        It’s very hard to violate the Apache license, but these are the sort of bozos who could manage it.

        EDIT: Here is the PEL. It lacks the attribution requirements of section 4 of the Apache Licence 2.0. So yeah, they managed it.

        This is a small technical violation that’s easily remedied, but I understand that’s what got people pissed off.

      • Soyweiser@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m a little bit in the camp of ‘it might be legal, but that doesn’t mean it is ok’. So I get why people are annoyed. Also copying a whole project and then slamming a different license on it and going ‘jobs done’ very much fits the promptfondler vibe, so im not mad, more of a ‘lol, of course they did’ thing. But that is me.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, pretty bad coverage of that by the article.

        Apache isn’t GPL, and it isn’t an oversight that it allows closed source derivative works.