YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Licensing and legality

  • Many distinguish between forking (permitted) and what PearAI allegedly did: remove original MIT/Apache attribution, replace the license with a closed “Pear Enterprise” one generated by ChatGPT, and only later switch to Apache 2.0 while still missing required notices.
  • Several posters argue this is straightforward copyright/license violation: you may add additional terms for your modifications, but you cannot strip the original license or attribution from unmodified upstream code.
  • A minority insist that “this is allowed under Apache/MIT” and that re-licensing or building an enterprise product on top is a legitimate business move; others respond that this misreads the license.

Ethics vs legality

  • Strong theme: “legal ≠ ethical.” People compare this to exploiting legal loopholes (e.g., downgrading tickets, looting “take a penny” jars).
  • Some see the behavior as a “dick move” that exploits open-source labor, undermines trust, and discourages future open releases.
  • Others push back: if you don’t want this, don’t use permissive licenses; relying on unwritten “politeness” rules is naïve.

YC’s role and reputation

  • Many see this as evidence YC has “traded prestige for growth”: huge batch sizes, thin AI wrappers, less diligence, and now backing a team that cloned another startup’s code and botched licensing/marketing.
  • The founders’ public comments (“chatgpt’d the license”, bragging about “100+ contributors” largely inherited from upstream) are viewed as indicating poor judgment or dishonesty.
  • Some argue YC is behaving like any early-stage investor: small checks, many bets, backing founders not ideas; a few say publicly shaming a portfolio company would itself be unethical.

Open source and future behavior

  • Debate over whether maintainers should move to copyleft/AGPL or novel “no AI / no SaaS without changes” clauses; others note such licenses hurt adoption and often aren’t recognized as “open source.”
  • Concern that high-profile exploitation (here and in other recent disputes) will push developers away from open source and public goods.

AI coding tools and market dynamics

  • Mixed views on AI editors: some report huge productivity gains (e.g., Copilot-style autocomplete), others find editor integrations clumsy versus using an LLM in a browser.
  • Several see PearAI as just another thin AI wrapper in an overcrowded space, raising questions about real differentiation and long-term viability.