The article just straight up doesn't mention the context of the Github Thread, which is about the guy lifting ideas from other engines and copy-washing them.

"Do you genuinely believe changes like cd170a4 make the code somehow not derived from Reckless anymore? It appears to me like it's just trying to obfuscate its origins, to make it easier to appeal to plausible deniability. The reality is, coda 100% has code derived from AGPL or unlicensed engines in it, and pretending otherwise won't convince anyone other than maybe yourself. This, combined with the fact you conveniently moved the plagiarism roadmaps to a private repo mere days after people started raising concerns about it, reads to me like you're not at all concerned with actually using code fairly, and much more with being able to claim that you are, backed up by these nonsense "cleanup" commits."

▲

minimaxir an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The README (https://github.com/adamtwiss/coda#license) addresses concerns about copyright in good faith and better than most agentic-driven repos:

> After our initial 0.9.0 pre-release (July 2026), community feedback raised that Coda contained AGPL-licensed code. This prompted a full audit of our codebase and dependencies, and steps to correct what it found. We now believe Coda complies with all applicable licenses. If you have any concern, please open a GitHub issue with the details and we'll happily investigate.

▲

Aurornis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The debate is about whether or not the new code qualifies as derived.

They can remove all of the literal code matches from the codebase, but if it was written by having an LLM study the original code and then write something similar, it's hard to argue it's not a derivative work.

▲

ncphillips an hour ago | parent [-]

Genuine question: if a human did this manually would it be considered derived?

	▲	Aurornis 40 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design There is a lot of legal history of doing new designs with influence from reverse engineered sources. The basic rule is that you can't have someone familiar with the original code involved with writing the new code. LLMs are a new area, but I would expect that feeding the original source into an LLM context and saying "Write this, but different" wouldn't qualify as a clean-room design. There isn't enough general removal from the original subject matter.
	▲	recursive-call 41 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		In my opinion yes. Just like if you watch a Bob Ross episode and copy all his brushstrokes, you have made a derivative (in the literal sense of the word) of his painting.

▲

mohamedkoubaa an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Imo without the sign off from Reckless it's suspicious

▲

xgulfie an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's so weird that they think they have to comply with copyright in this case, but not in the case of any other license

▲

slopinthebag an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

"We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing"

▲

matheusmoreira an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> lifting ideas

It's not like ideas are protected by copyright though. Copyright protects the specific expression of the idea, not the idea itself. Anyone can "lift ideas" from anyone else, including proprietary software.

▲

xboxnolifes 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You're attacking his word choice, but the context is clear that it would be protected.

▲

bakugo 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Except "Claude, take this code and change the variable names up a bit" is not lifting ideas, and you would not get away with doing that to software belonging to a company with a competent legal department.

	▲	matheusmoreira 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> "Claude, take this code and change the variable names up a bit" Is it a fact that they did that?

▲

Bjartr 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

samatman an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Keeping in mind that I'm going strictly off the commit[0], a bit-packing layout is very much the kind of thing which is not subject to copyright in the first place. Neither are algorithms. Ideas, in general, are not subject to copyright: expression is.

So "lifting ideas from other engines", as you yourself put it, is entirely licit, no matter how you do it. _Should_ you credit others when so doing? I err on the side of yes, on that question. _Must_ you? No, there is no such requirement, this is not academic publishing. Does it constitute violation of license? Absolutely not. Straightforwardly, no. Furthermore, it _should not_, we would not like the result of that.

Think: SCO suing Linus Torvalds over his use of a.out: and winning. It would be bad. Even though I understand the reasons for it, it's still eerie to me to see hackers coming down hard on a side of an issue we spend decades passionately defending the other side of.

As I lead this post with: maybe there's something in the repo which is infringing, it's quite possible that commit doesn't tell the whole story. If so, keep in mind that I don't know that, and am able to change my opinion in the face of new evidence.

Based on what I _have_ seen, no: you do not get to lock down a bit-packing pattern just because you're the first to come up with it. Nor should you have that right.

[0]: https://github.com/adamtwiss/coda/commit/cd170a4ea9993cf8246...

▲

anematode 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You'll notice I didn't mention copyright, and that's because I don't think it's relevant. I think your analysis is correct. Keep in mind too that Stockfish – the engine I work on, although I wasn't at the time – was the subject of a high-profile defense of the GPL in Germany: https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2021/our-lawsuit-against-che.... That case was different as it involved wholesale copying of the source code, rather than porting ideas. Ideas shouldn't be copyrightable.

But copyright and plagiarism are orthogonal, and questions of morality are much more tied to the latter. It would be illegal (in the United States) for me to publish a copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four, but not immoral. It was not immoral, in my view, for Aaron Swartz to try to liberate JSTor articles.

That doesn't make plagiarism acceptable, either. And therefore, I'm willing to call it out when I see it.

▲

samatman 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

Have you contemplated the deep irony that your hobby stole mastery of chess from mankind, forever?

Now you're demoralized because of... artificial intelligence?

	▲	anematode 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's a dog-eat-dog world, eh? :) Anyway, I don't see how this relates to the original discussion. Nor do I think the irony is particularly deep: As far as I'm aware, Deep Blue didn't plagiarize Kasparov, and indeed alpha-beta search is quite different than how humans calculate.

▲

matheusmoreira 37 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

No idea why you're getting downvoted. You're right.

> it's still eerie to me to see hackers coming down hard on a side of an issue we spend decades passionately defending the other side of

Yeah, it's surreal. It's not just intellectual property either, Hackers have already started complaining about automation now too.

Computers must have replaced tens of millions of jobs. It's the ultimate job destroyer, since it allows capital to do more with less. Automating me, a doctor, out of his job is essentially the holy grail of Hacker News.

But when hackers are automated away, then suddenly it's a crime against humanity.