> 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 copy _code_" and not taking any responsibility says a lot about his and his company's moral code. It might not be enough to get sued. That doesn't make it right.
You have to share the source code even when the user interacts over the network with the software.
The project which uses that code, must also be AGPL,
There are ways to separate it and go around it, for example, using an AGPL auth server shouldn't affect the code where your business logic lives
I am sure they could have found a way to design their product to be compliant, especially following past drama.
This is assuming the code is indeed copied, since we don't know that for sure, it does look very similar but I am not sure how that is enforced
> Hey Nico,
> It looks like you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark's open source and enterprise-licensed code.
> We demand you take this copyright and license infringing product down immediately.
> It's not moving fast and breaking things, it's fraud.
> It makes the rest of your business questionable and the YC community look terrible.
“Team effort”
“:praying-hands (x2)”
And so on… The audacity and complete shamelessness…
I wonder what narrative they tell themselves.
"This ain't what a C&D looks like. Implies you don't actually have a leg to stand on. Upload a copy of your official legal demand (from a lawyer) or I'll forever see your company as one who attempts to bully the competition in public"
-- https://xcancel.com/jacobhartmannx/status/207012600834729596...
Is this just trolling?!
https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Conditio...
Just ban users who comment without reading, I think that would go further to keep the quality of discussion high.
The number of bots/trolls responding to the title without reading the content and missing the point entirely is astounding, honestly, and I don't think any of those posts are contributing to high quality discussion. We could do without those users.
"but but but I can't/won't open twitter links" - then don't flap your yak-hole. Ignoring for a moment that the content has been reproduced in full in this thread, and another user has provided an alternative xcancel link.
Naturally LLM technology has moved on since then. I don't remember any recent word for word reproductions of a copyright license.
There are a lot of people lauding the technology though because it occasionally one-shots a wildly impressive example of something which...already exists.
The most widely used definitions of “open source” do not allow such a prohibition.
A cursory look reveals they aren't complying. So, as you say, they are stealing. What's the point of this comment?
1. I'm going to give away all my work for free to the whole world.
2. HELP! HELP! POLICE! People are stealing my work!
Start charging a fair price for your work, or just give away the binaries and not the source if you want to do it for free.
Step out of the FOSS swamp, step in to human dignity.
Competition would be if these people created their own software, possibly innovating and improving it in the process. That would encourage Papermark to improve their own offering, and would create an environment where these businesses are economically incentivized to improve the product or service.
Nobody is incentivized to improve the software in question here. If copyright law doesn't protect anything, then improving your product is helping the competition and potentially hurting your business. Same is true if you're the people who did the infringement.
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 use their work.
> Step out of the FOSS swamp, step in to human dignity.
What is that even supposed to mean?
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.
That may be true, but I don't think it's obvious. What don't I know about the history of OSS?
Not humans who are using AI tools?
Software developers should charge a fair price for their products from their users. That's dignified and beneficial for everybody involved. And it doesn't invite "code stealers" or anybody who wants to reap what they didn't sow.
Just like any type of work. Fair compensation is the key. Not working for free for people who don't care about you and then complain that they didn't give you anything.
The 'spirit of free software' is bullshit. It's software authoritarianism disguised as a noble cause.
Or... Be nice and ask. People tell u what to do. Don't be rude here.
I remember this Video editor software which didn't comply properly with OSS licence of FFMPEG(?). And people told author what to do. It's always cheap to be kind. Or win dumb prizes.
FOSS != public domain.
1. I want to help people in need, so I'm just going to leave my house open, put stickers all over town with the adress and a note that the house is open to anybody and help yourself (only if you really need), and go on vacation.
2. HELP! HELP! POLICE! They robbed everything from my house!
Because "legally", you didn't allow anybody to rob your house while leaving it untended and with invites all over town. Just as I "legally" don't allow anybody to steal my wallet if I throw it into the middle of a busy train terminal.
But it's time to stop playing these games, step out of the swamp and into human dignity: which is to not willfully make yourself a victim and then complain, when you have all the control already of what code you contribute where.
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
An honest title would be “Corgi didn’t vibe code it, they stole Papermark’s AGPL code”.
Sure, people should read links, but when a writer posts ragebait for engagement, there’s plenty of blame to go around.
I was mostly fighting the title character limit
The paraphrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting to convert it to ragebait. Had the OP gone with something like "you didn't vibe code it, you plagiarized Papermark's open source project" (may need some editing to fit under the character limit) it would have at least been more true to the original tweet.
If you come to book club without reading the book, and you derail the conversation into something completely irrelevant, you're not getting invited back.
I did choose the wrong word, though. Comply, not copy.
their comment still says "copy". the comment you are replying to clarifies that they meant to type "comply", not copy.
since the wrong word is still there, 'by definition' they have not edited it.
Though it looks like in this case they didn't do either.