Thread

1. podgietaru · 1785957048 · focus · HN ↗

   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."

   1. NitpickLawyer · 1785992669 · focus · HN ↗

      > lifting ideas from other engines and copy-washing them.

      You cannot copyright ideas. And that's a good thing. Remember the "one click checkout patent" saga? That is bad for everyone involved. We don't want that, as an industry.

      1. dgellow · 1785997711 · focus · HN ↗

         You’re mixing patent and copyright. You can patent an innovative algorithm in the US. And the implementation is of course protected by copyright

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.