[fargle]

looks like they fixed it: https://github.com/pickle-com/glass/commit/5c462179acface889...

let's not freak out - you can't "steal" open-source code, they used an incompatible license. that was accidentally too free.

people monetizing something you open-source isn't stealing.

[AnotherGoodName]

If it was 'just' a licensing slip up sure, but there's still a lot of integrity issues here despite that. The presentation of "we created an open source library to do X in just days" comes across as a lie right?

I feel like ycombinator leads may want to look more deeply into this one. If they are presenting it as something they've achieved that's an integrity issue right?

[rustystump]

This is the crux of it all to me. Anyone in the industry knows mistakes happen all the time but the braggadocios nature rubs me the wrong way and spits in the face to those of YC who do indeed have integrity.

[alt187]

> looks like they fixed it: https://github.com/pickle-com/glass/commit/5c462179acface889...

Not fixed, covered up.

> let's not freak out - you can't "steal" open-source code, they used an incompatible license. that was accidentally too free.

What a poetic formulation? In reality, they deleted history and they put a license that allows the "freedom" to let them monetize the code. I wonder how's the original author more free with this license? How is anyone more free? Sounds like the license was "accidentally" "too free" in a way that only made themselves more free.

> people monetizing something you open-source isn't stealing.

It's, in fact, the precise definition when the open-source project uses the GPLv3 license.

[selcuka]

> that was accidentally too free.

You are ignoring the fact that they claimed that they "built it in just 72 hours", accidentally omitting to mention that it's a fork of another repo.

[Alex4386]

yes, but sublicensing to even permissive ("free-er") license (GPLv3+ to Apache2.0) is a violation of license.

GPL is supposed to viral, if you are using project adopted that, you are taking the risk with it. If you are just changing the license and took the code, that's wrong and need to get an attention. If anyone could go just yoink and relicense the GPL code to other permissive license was "legal", the https://gpl-violations.org wouldn't exist in the first place (i.e. you can just take the linux kernel code and rename it something like "mynux", redistribute in bsd-3 clause and "don't distribute the derivative part").

[Incipient]

And they've now orphaned that commit, they're a sketchy bunch at best.

Unfortunately, sketchy is generally rewarded.

[skwashd]

I'm starting to sense a pattern with this project.

They've squashed the history to hide their earlier "error". This isn't compliant with section 5a of the GPLv3[1].

"sketchy at best" is a polite description of this pattern of behaviour.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#section5

[ValentineC]

It looks like they've squashed everything into a single commit, since there's only a commit on their repo right now that was pushed 28 minutes ago (as of this comment).

That's probably the right thing to do Git-wise, because licences might not be retroactive.

[dns_snek]

The license they used was less free than the GPL license. Laundering GPL code into projects with licenses that aren't as free is classic copyright infringement.

[whilenot-dev]

You're ignoring the part about attribution due to copyright law, see: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/13038/does-so...

[tareqak]

From what I understand, it would be a breach of contract at minimum (based on what I remember from past discussions of this sort of activity involving different participants).

If someone else has a better idea of what “forking GPL 3 source code and using a different licence” would be, then please let me and others know.

[rwmj]

If you don't follow the license, then you don't have a license to use, distribute or modify the code. So then you get into copyright violation territory, up to $150,000 per infringement in the US if it's intentional.

[perihelions]

You can read the text of the GPLv3 license itself; it has a specific provision for this case.

> "Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice."

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

[jrflowers]

Realistically this will probably just have a reputational cost for Daniel Park/Pickle. Whether he intended to or not, some amount of people will associate “pretends to make things that he did not make” with him because of this entirely unforced error.

[Arainach]

>From what I understand, it would be a breach of contract at minimum

Isn't that the minimum bar for a "business model" capable of attracting VC interest these days?

[rendall]

They cloned (not forked) the repo, removed the history, claimed it as their own, and changed the license. This is not a mistake

[mpol]

Is the copyright still attributed to the original developer?

[Alex4386]

no. its BOTH attribution AND license violation.