Photopea creator weighs in on Photosuite project
Accusations of code theft against a new desktop photo editor have highlighted how easily AI tools can turn proprietary web apps into near-clones. Commenters argue that the project appears to be a lightly modified copy of an existing browser-based Photoshop alternative, raising questions about software copyright, “clean-room” claims, and GitHub’s willingness to police such cases. More broadly, people worry that LLM-assisted reverse engineering could erode practical software licensing, intensify cloning of successful apps, and shift power toward those who control AI tooling rather than original developers.
Allegations of Code Copying
- Commenters say the Photosuite project began from an “offline” mirror of Photopea, which itself appears to be an unauthorized rip of the original app.
- Several note that using an unlicensed or pirated repo does not confer rights to reuse or extend the code, especially for a competing product.
- The original app’s author publicly claims large portions of Photosuite are direct copies with only variable names changed via AI.
- The Photosuite maintainer initially asks for proof, later acknowledges the lineage, bans the original author’s account on the repo, then deletes the issue and all issues, announcing an “internal code audit.”
Behavior, Credibility, and AI-Generated Responses
- Many commenters describe Photosuite’s replies as obviously LLM‑generated and view that as evasive.
- Some accuse the maintainer of lying, bullying, and using sockpuppet accounts to defend the project and attack critics.
- Others caution against over-interpreting single-word replies or jumping to personal insults.
Licensing, Double Standards, and “Tu Quoque”
- A counter-thread highlights that Photopea itself may embed multiple OSS libraries without proper attribution or license text, suggesting hypocrisy in complaining about copying.
- Others respond that even if those violations are real, they do not negate the alleged copying of Photopea’s proprietary code.
- There is debate over how serious it is to strip MIT/ASL license text; some call it “tame,” others say that is the core license requirement.
AI, Reverse Engineering, and the Future of Software
- Several participants argue that LLMs plus tools like Ghidra make reverse-engineering and “Rust rewrites” of proprietary games and apps trivial, pushing software toward de facto open source.
- Others warn that this shifts power to proprietary LLM providers: the “freedom” to modify code belongs to the model owner, not end users.
- There is discussion about whether clean-room AI rewrites are derivative works and how law and norms will adapt; many see current rules as lagging.
Platform and Governance Concerns
- Multiple comments describe GitHub/Microsoft as unresponsive to takedown requests for clear clones.
- Some worry about increasing AI-fueled cloning, astroturfing, and hype eroding trust in small independent software projects.