• raoul
    link
    fedilink
    English
    222 months 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?

    • db0OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      182 months ago

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

      • David GerardMA
        link
        English
        17
        edit-2
        2 months 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
        link
        English
        142 months 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.

        • David GerardMA
          link
          English
          122 months ago

          It’s a little illegal and a lot christ what assholes

      • @conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        92 months 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.

    • @slopjockey
      link
      English
      72 months ago

      The way he admitted it was hilarious too