Re:Replit used legal threats to kill my open-source project
by thefunnyman on Monday June 07, 2021 @02:13PM
(#27426004)
I tend to agree. It seems like the author of the article already addressed this accusation [0]. I admittedly am biased in favor of OSS authors but I tend to agree with the points he made there. Namely, this product doesn’t clone any design decisions that aren’t already public. More importantly, Replits differentiator isn’t the ability to run code in browser (which tons of other projects already offer), it’s the polish and support that comes with scaling that idea.
[0] https://intuitiveexplanations.com/tech/replit/#is-replit-rig...
Re:Replit used legal threats to kill my open-source project
by jeanloolz on Monday June 07, 2021 @03:04PM
(#27426609)
> copying it
"it" could refers to the feature, not the code. That sentence is clearly ambiguous, the meaning slightly change based on what it refers to.
Re:Replit used legal threats to kill my open-source project
by shkkmo on Monday June 07, 2021 @04:41PM
(#27426765)
You are correct, "it" could refer to a feature in the first instance in that sentence, but probably not the second instance (since we don't usually talk about making a feature open source.)
The most coherent interpretation of that sentence is that "it" refers to code in both instances. However, the intent of a sentence is not always the same as it's most coherent interpretation and "it" misuse is a frequent cause of unintentional ambiguity. (That's why I qualified my statement with the "implication seems to be" language.)
> There is a difference between copying a feature and actually getting intro a contract, and access to the code, copying it and calling it open-source.
> As a matter of principle, when someone goes into your home and steals from you, even if it's not material, you have to respond.
EDIT: Added quote. The implication seems to be that he thinks source code was stolen and this has nothing to do with design.