| ▲ | cal85 6 days ago |
| Wait is this a Lovable clone that is actually called open-lovable? That seems bold |
|
| ▲ | rbren 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Having started OpenDevin (now OpenHands [1]) I can say it's definitely worth renaming. It's very limiting attaching your branding to someone else's [1] https://github.com/All-Hands-AI/OpenHands |
| |
| ▲ | swyx 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | idk, do you think you would have gotten the start you did NOT being called opendevin? (hi btw! see GP's talk on OpenHands here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_hhkJtlbSs&t=4s) | | |
| ▲ | tough 3 days ago | parent [-] | | maybe the best optimal strategy is leech into the brand while you're unknown, and switch to your own once you make it. A bit sleazy but it works eh Can't fight marketing and human psychology | | |
| ▲ | swyx 2 days ago | parent [-] | | imitation = sincere flattery etc | | |
| ▲ | tough a day ago | parent [-] | | yes that's the benevolent take,but in a market for attention, it feels like a bit of a vampire attack to a brand to spun off OpenBrand. seems some what of a template now, OpenCut was recently on HN because some chinese company already owns their trademark, which is a pun/open version of CapCut, so things are getting a bit hairy at least, lol |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ErikBjare 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I still sometimes have to refer to OpenHands as "formerly known as OpenDevin". It may be limiting in the long run, but it definitely had some short-term punchiness. | |
| ▲ | echelon 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It gets you some quick attention. The people that need to notice will follow. |
|
|
| ▲ | toddmorey 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's not really an "open lovable". I mean, there is of course a NextJS repo as part of it, but you need to bring your own API keys to an AI provider, as well as e2b.dev (sandbox, required) as well as firecrawl.dev (web scraping, oddly required). It's the web scraping more than anything that makes me the least enthusiastic. I get that's the core of their business, but packaged this way, it's much less a loveable-style "build your vision" and more a "quickly copy another site". Just serving as a copy machine is the least interesting use of all this insane compute. |
|
| ▲ | dudeinjapan 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Im waiting for open-open-ai |
| |
| ▲ | guerrilla 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Everyone's waiting for open-open-ai. | | | |
| ▲ | merelysounds 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | With “open” being such a common word, I wonder if that one might actually get a pass. And if not, then maybe open-squared-ai. |
|
|
| ▲ | Uehreka 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It feels like a common thing in the AI space (moreso than other OSS spaces). People don’t get how trademarks work and that you can’t just name your project after something that’s already popular. I think some people think it’s a clever growth hack. |
|
| ▲ | conradev 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As long as it’s not misleading:
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic... I am reminded of OpenNext (https://opennext.js.org/) even though Vercel has a Next.js trademark. |
| |
| ▲ | cal85 5 days ago | parent [-] | | compliance with a github policy isn't really the issue lol |
|
|
| ▲ | xtajv 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It seems like trademark infringement. |
| |
| ▲ | croes 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Can’t find a Loveable trademark for the app AI | | |
| ▲ | yencabulator 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, for starters, it's not spelled with that first e. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=99194755&caseSearchType=U... | | |
| ▲ | cal85 5 days ago | parent [-] | | also trademark registration is not remotely relevant here | | |
| ▲ | yencabulator 5 days ago | parent [-] | | What do you mean? It's literally the legal mechanism by which Lovable Labs Incorporated can prevent this guy from calling his thing open-lovable. | | |
| ▲ | SonOfLilit 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Registering your trademark makes enforcement easier, but there's a reason both TM and R exist - unregistered trademarks still hold power. | | |
| ▲ | yencabulator 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure. But for a company with a lot of money at stake, filing a trademark application isn't a huge bar and makes winning the legal case a lot easier. |
| |
| ▲ | cal85 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | nope, fire your lawyer. you get a common law trademark by trading under a name. no need to register it. TM registration is just to streamline big corps chasing after lots of small abusers in a wackamole way, that’s all. if the abuse in question is as egregious as “I used their product name, barely modified, to market my own thing, which is not just in the same general market but a literal clone of their product” then a judge is not going to say “Ah but I see they didn’t send in a form to register their trademark, so yeah carry on with blatantly stealing their work lol” | | |
| ▲ | bravesoul2 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I feel like "also trademark registration is not remotely relevant here" is a distracting statement then. Not necessarily wrong but easy for people to bikeshed over. | | |
| ▲ | cal85 5 days ago | parent [-] | | fair I retract “is not remotely relevant here” and offer “is not really relevant here” |
| |
| ▲ | yencabulator 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Lovable is a $1.8 B valuation company with $75 M ARR. Using some thousands of dollars to defend that stake sounds reasonable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
