Delve allegedly forked an open-source tool and sold it as its own

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

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.