I did an interview a couple years ago when Corgi was first hiring engineers. Nico and I ... did not click and it was probably the least smooth interview I've ever had despite it just being a phone screen.

I wouldn't be that surprised if Nico genuinely thinks "we didn't copy the code" is a reasonable defense. It would be a clear cut rule, and extreme "shape rotator" types often have trouble with the fuzziness of things like law. In reality, copyright infringement is often more like the porn test, you know it when you see it.

> It might not be enough to get sued. That doesn't make it right.

Perhaps that’s enough for them. Legal gray area worked for Uber, AirBnB and many more.

As a consumer in not happy though, I don’t like incentivizing companies with such creative approach to law.

>they copied whole pages verbatim

Parts of pages. Look at the screenshots. The wording is different between the pages.

they probably need to sue to enforce this, I think this is actually going to be a larger issue than just corgi. copyright with these models really is just a mess

What a wonderful world we live in where we can blame machines and extremely dilluted processes for all things we might do wrong.

I wonder if Nico will be feeling so cocky when Papermark gets their general counsel involved. The public Twitter shaming was clearly an attempt to resolve this without litigation, but hey, if that's how Nico truly feels, guess he gets to see what's behind door #2 (a massive bill for a legal retainer).

What a bizarre complaint! It's not bullying to first try to resolve the matter informally rather than jumping straight into legal action.

Besides - who is this guy, and why does he think he's owed sight of any legal paperwork?

Look at his other tweets, he seems to be a sociopathic extremist

Yeah, the title that the OP chose is so sufficiently misleading that I think this one will need to be get changed by the mods. Seitz isn't opining on the ethics of vibe coding in his tweet, he's pointing out that Corgi literally just stole Papermark's AGPL codebase and passed it off as vibe coding.

wait just a second, that's not how to use HN. youre supposed to read the title -> get upset and write a comment -> argue.

I remember a few cases when asking an LLM to do something in the early days yielded not only the code but an author and a COPYRIGHT license.

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.

Vibe stole it?

Same thing https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/

And maybe reword the submission title while they're there, though the current one is well chosen for maximizing engagement I'm sure.

Many open source licenses levy restrictions upon the acceptable use of the software. Those restrictions may include attribution requirements, up to and including a requirement to include the license when redistributing the code; they may forbid using derivative works for commercial purposes; they may require the downstream project to utilize the same license. Open source is not the same thing as "anybody can do anything they want forever."

Papermark is AGPL; Corgi must release all its changes.

It's really hard to not assume this is intentional ragebait.

A cursory look reveals they aren't complying. So, as you say, they are stealing. What's the point of this comment?

Copyleft is still a thing. Right to attribution is still a thing. Please, read about it and you will discover that there is a lot of nuance to the open-source code.

"before Bison version 1.24, Bison-generated parsers could be used only in programs that were free software."

https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Conditio...

That's not how licenses work, Papermark is AGPL

"If Disney wants to retain their rights to Mickey they really shouldn't be showing any images of him to the world."

It is, but this isn't competition. This just copyright infringement.

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.

When it plays fair, sure. Not when it steals.

Let’s not even talk about the feature. Copying the entire visual design itself with superficial tweaks is pretty brazen and, frankly, incredibly lazy.

When competition has no rules it resorts to people banging each other over their heads with clubs.

Its sounds like you are taking a side.