Delve allegedly forked an open-source tool and sold it as its own
A YC-backed startup that sells software compliance tools is accused of quietly forking an Apache-licensed open source project, stripping attribution, and marketing it as proprietary — allegedly even denying the fork when questioned. Commenters note that while permissive licenses allow commercial use, failing to meet attribution requirements is still copyright infringement and becomes especially serious when done by a company selling “compliance” as its product. The episode fuels broader criticism of startup culture, permissive licensing, and the lack of consequences for companies that build lucrative businesses on lightly modified open source code while misleading customers and investors.
License compliance and legal issues
- Many note the project is under Apache 2.0 (permissive, allows commercial use), but stress that attribution, copyright notices, and NOTICE files are mandatory.
- Several argue that using the code without meeting those conditions means there was no valid license, making it straightforward copyright infringement.
- Some push back initially, treating it as “not a big deal” or confusing Apache with MIT, then concede that both require attribution.
- A few compare this to shoplifting or pirating proprietary software: the license is the “price,” and ignoring it invalidates use.
- There’s debate whether retroactively adding attribution fully cures the violation; some say yes legally, others argue you can’t just “fix” past infringement.
Honesty, ethics, and startup culture
- Many see the core issue as dishonesty: allegedly claiming the product was built in-house rather than being a fork.
- Commenters emphasize that lying about origins destroys credibility, especially for a company selling compliance and licensing expertise.
- Some argue this reflects a broader startup culture of “move fast,” cutting corners on legal and ethical obligations, and investors rewarding grifters.
- Others frame it as inexperience by very young founders under YC/VC pressure, but critics say that doesn’t excuse misrepresentation.
Open source dynamics and licensing philosophy
- Several highlight how permissive licenses allow companies to commercialize open source with minimal obligations, often out-marketing original creators.
- This leads to frustration and calls for stronger copyleft licenses (GPL/AGPL), though others note enforcement is costly and often unrealistic.
- There’s discussion of DMCA and practical barriers to small developers enforcing their rights, especially across borders and app stores.
Tangent: language, memes, and norms
- A linked blog post using a meme with a racial slur sparks a long subthread about “edgelord” culture, racism, and whether sharing such content is ever acceptable.
- People debate neurodivergence, social norms, and whether strict civility standards are exclusionary, with strong disagreement and some mutual frustration.
Related anecdotes
- One developer shares an MIT-licensed app being resold without attribution, illustrating similar license violations and emotional impact.