Open Source Project DESTROYED By Legal Threats 

same

we need to get building repliz clones on the same level as hello world

@@leohofer7502 Every new website is a replit clone by default. 🙃

A name like replit is asking to be replicated.

Sir, I strongly advise you against this course of action lest you expose yourself to legal action from my recently Incorporated organization ReplitReplit.

What’s the opposite of a moat? A ramp? A ladder right up to the castle wall?

There are a lot of those.

Thats what the CEO is afraid people will realize hahahaha

Able to handle 7 million users is one big plus point. But for them come down this strong on an intern doesn’t look good.

@@Brainiac5 lol yup

If they use those company secrets and then write down how they used those company secrets to build something better, it most definitely is. I’m a bit surprised at the people trying to justify what the intern did…

@@darkopz I truly don't think the intern did anything wrong. He didn't make a competitor, he didn't steal code, he just used his experience and knowledge to make a fun side project. He didn't use 'company secrets' or anything patented or protected.

@@darkopz thats why there are no-compete clauses. im assuming he didnt have one.

@@MrDevianceh Theres a difference between making something again black box when there’s no non compete versus working somewhere and directly lifting their work and making it your own.

@@EllipsesDots It seems like he did use company code though? That’s what it seemed like. It would have been an interesting case to see what the courts would think.

their ceo is the biggest joke. Dude just says the dumbest things on twitter. i just know he's surrounded by 'yes men'

they got hacked again .... soryy not sorry....my ethical hacking class accidently got back in the day all they client data and passwords.... they not very good site or secure. plane text passwords. and you can log in to they system from they code box.

Anyone that used them it's brain-dead anyway

Sounds of questionable legality. Duties of service provision and whatnot.

spicy

This is seriously great. If they are going to claim similarities between architectures the burden is with them to prove which would require providing source code. Sounds like you may have gone through this yourself.

If you can. Some countries (or states in the US) require agreement from both sides.

@@kuhluhOGAlso good luck if you own an iPhone...

@@MadaraUchihaSecondRikudo You can use a bluetooth headset that records the audio. Connect the bt headset to your phone, take the call, press the record button, both sides are recorded. Super easy, and pretty cheap

​@MadaraUchihaSecondRikudo if you STILL use apple products, you kinda deserve it tbh. Unless you are just one of those people who still use their X+ yo phone and simply didn't switch to something better.

Or just don't do it over the phone.

LMAOO based sigma chad co-founder

apparently Finnish people know how to finish corporate bullying

cool story. but then, you are in america, the company actually sues the tough finnish guy. the tough finnish guys seeks legal advice, will cry in tears and close his little start up when he finds out that fighting a legal battle eats up his capital before a decision is made!

I once had a manager, who accused me of utilizing company code in my open-source projects. I explained that I did the opposite, reuse my own open-source libraries in their company code base. He followed up, asking for proof! I replied: 1) _My initial GitHub commit on these libraries, was done 2 years prior of working for this company!_ 2) _It are the only libraries, in the whole company code-stack, that don't look like hastily written sh**!_ The discussion ended there...

@@gerdokurt I know what you mean. But hey my partner happens to have a highly qualified lawyer of international business as a girlfriend. We are in Finland, the aggressor is in Ireland. We know what resources they have. We also know they have no leg to stand on. Also, the tactic is to tell them straight and forcibly that they don't have a chance and we won't back down. With the expectation that brings them to a halt immediately. If not, if they persist, OK then we fold. Call it a game of poker, bluff and counter bluff.

yeah "works on my machine" is part of the value proposition for environments as a service

Especially with their recent charge toward a co-pilot clone

github codespace....?

that is idiotic to say given the IP is software.

​@@pookiepatsAh yes, the super unique... >checks notes< website that can write/run code...?

Only if there's a company with a patent on the exact mechanism :) - of which there is, of course (EP2921983A1)

@@dealloc dear Lord forgive me for I've looked at a patent! O.o

I mean, intentions itself is really a bad metrics. A lot of people have good intentions with very bad outcomes. And good intentions for whom? War could be justified as good intentions for their country and people. There is also qualified immunity which prevents cops from being sued because they supposedly have good intentions. And a bit meta : is deontological ethics ethical ? I mean, can something be ethical irrespective of outcome especially if it harms someone?

Ew Kants

even utilitarianism looks at expected outcomes rather than actual ones

When you break your leg it's unethical to set your leg because it will hurt. If I distract you with a look-over-there so you don't see the set coming is even more unethical. Who knew, today I learned.

@@TheNewton Three absolutely braindead replies to an intelligent comment.

eehhh, you can't prove intentions, so it's not a factor from outside perspective.

@@haniffaris8917 First off thats why this is about ethics and not about legality. In ethics intentions absolutely do matter and it does not matter if you can "prove" your intentions. If it can be disproven that those were your intentions that's a different story but until then your word goes. Courts often take into account intentions when making decisions on the severity of punishment and unless they can be disproven or it is shown that your character does not agree with your statements, your word will be accepted.

Another example is a surgeon trying to save someone in a difficult and easy to mess up operation, and accidentally doing something wrong and killing them, vs an evil surgeon that purposedly does the wrong thing and kills the patient. The actions were the exact same, but clearly one of them is unethical and the other isn't.

I would say that Alice accidentally stealing the coffee is ethically wrong, but less ethically wrong purposefully stealing it. The factors were entirely in her control, and as a member of society, she is obligated to make sure she paid and stuff. Although, now I'm reading @franss22 reply, and I'm not sure... because I feel like in some ways the complexity and inherit risk of surgery might make them ethically ok. If the surgery is risky, the patient was fully aware of that and consented... idk... If it was a surgery the surgeon should know they're not qualified for or whatever, then they're ethically in the wrong (though not as much as the evil surgeon of course), but if it was a surgery they're fully qualified for... idk... what was the mistake? As a surgeon in the operating room, you should be held to a higher standard, but also, surgery is very complex thing. How avoidable was the mistake? Did they forget an important step? I'd say they were ethically bound to remember that and is ethically in the wrong. But if they nicked an artery or whatever... idk... how avoidable was that? But also, just because humans make mistakes and stuff, the coffee company should be aware that sometimes people are going to accidentally do stuff like Alice did. Not intending to do something shouldn't absolve you (but should lessen unethicalness), but at the same time, it was a risky surgery, the surgeon is only human, and the patient was made fully aware of the risks... Whose idea was the surgery? Did the patient demand it? If the surgeon suggested it, knowing full well the risks, maybe that would be unethical, but also maybe it's best option for the patient? hmm...

@@zperk13 ethics is more of a spectrum, if she just forgot, then yeah its only marginally better than the guy who actively intended to steal the coffee, when you're taking stuff from someone else the obligation is on you to ensure you paid, now if she went to pay and the payment terminal declined but she assumed it had paid, then yeah I would say still bad on her part, if she didn't care to wait to check it said payment successful she is still being lax in her responsibility to ensure she pay, but better than just forgetting to pay and walking off, then there is the tipping point where she taps her card, it says payment successful and she leaves, but the transaction ends up not going through properly she is very much in the ethically fair side of the equation, sure she could be checking her bank statements for every purchase, but that's above and beyond what most people would expect of a customer (with the exception of huge transactions in the thousands of dollars range at that point I would expect the buyer to notice if the transaction didn't clear) ethics is always shades of grey, there is very few black and white cases, honestly in the case of the story this video is covering, I would argue the guy totally not ripping off the idea from a workplace he was working at is on the darker shade of grey side of the spectrum, the idea of suddenly trying to replicate the functions of a platform he worked on, smells of nothing more than a salty ex-worker looking to be a jerk, like if I run a delivery company and hire drivers, I fire one drive because he was causing too many headaches so he decides to start offering free deliveries targeting my customers, sure you could argue that's his right to do so and if he wants to do free deliveries and target my customers its not really illegal, but on the other hand its fairly obvious that his intent was just to get back at me for letting him go, that said if the CEO had just ignored his little game, I doubt he would've kept at it for more than a few months until he found a new job and found someone else to hold a vendetta against, all the CEO did was paint a bigger target on his back and give the guy what he wanted which was attempting to damage his ex-employer

"You worked as a chef at my restauraunt, so you are forbidden from cooking food for yourself or others ever again"

Your comment makes me think you didnt watch the entire video and didn’t see what the intern actually did. 🎉

@@darkopz Your comment makes me think you take everything at face value. This is how many companies are made, toxic job turns into screw you idiots I can do it better. Unless he signed a non-compete (no interns are signing these) then he can do whatever he wants with the knowledge in his head. This is exactly how my company got started and sold to Microsoft... where I still work today. This includes known customers, poaching employees, design decisions, and anti-competitive pricing. If you intern and learn react are you barred from ever making a react app again...? No thats stupid and these companies codebases consist of like 80% third party packages in the first place...

@@ZephrymWOW even IF he signed a non-compete, those are typically not enforceable and fail in court.

@@martinkrauser4029 Because you have to pay them nearly full salary to not be considered targeting their means of earning money.

@@darkopz I watched the entire video. The intern wrote a pet project that lets you run code online. He did not copy a single line of code, or "steal" any intellectual property. He simply wrote a project. Yes, he used ideas from replit, because there's no possible way to avoid doing that when you've previously worked on a project, but he did not reveal any trade secrets. Working on a project is not grounds for preventing someone from creating or working on similar, or even identical projects, whether they're monetized or not. It would've been unethical if he copied code, but he didn't.

this

Replit doesn't even have a secret sauce tho, is jsut on demand docker containers connected to a xterm.js page

@@ControversybutComedy-ev7nh if there was a non compete or NDA it would definitely have been brought up, why are you assuming that is the case?

​@@ControversybutComedy-ev7nh that's no-compete not an NDA, and filled with fallacies. Such things are implied to come with large compensations as it's literally invalidating someones job experience and spent life-time by crippling their ability to work in their chosen industry. Most "non-competes" are unreasonable and thus unenforceable and why even the FTC is moving to ban them until we make them federally illegal. It's patents,trademarks and copyright that have substance, the rest are chest thumping posturing and bad interpretations and abuse of the law.

@@ControversybutComedy-ev7nh " hired intern for your product AA and left then build quite similar concept but say "I don't use your code"" That's part of the risk of startups. In the Docusign example, who do you think they hire, randoms know-nothings off the street or developers that have worked in the document-industry and for competitors. Do you understand the word: poaching. Get a book or take a course on critical thinking.

@@somenameidk5278what if the intern didn’t fully read the contract that they signed for the internship so they didn’t bring it up because they weren’t aware of it? Yes, there are people who do fully read the contract, but not all interns or employees fully read the contracts that they sign for job offers.

Android is an entirely different story, in that it used to be proprietary OS for digital cameras, before pivoting to other handheld devices, failing to attract investors. Google acquired it and made Android what it is today, as an open source project.

@@dealloc that doesn’t change the fact that some of the biggest Android contributors have been from the iOS team at Apple. It’s not uncommon for people to use open source projects to explore good ideas they had that their job won’t allow them to explore.

Well it does exist and it's called Free Software Foundation, but writing (A)GPL code (instead of a typical MIT communism) will make a typical open source connoisseur blacklisted in Big Tech companies anyway.

"open source legal organization" eh? Open Source is a term for software, maybe you mean non-profit pro bono organization?

@@ra2enjoyer708 I'm describing more of a legal aid organization that devs can request assistance from. FSF has a licensing arm that enforces compliance of its license but I'm more referring to something like Software Freedom Law Center, which I found out after commenting. But, even that organization is focused on license compliance. A dev or team who is being sued or told to take down their open source project should have an legal aid organization they can reach out to to request legal representation at little or no cost.

@@ra2enjoyer708 Wait why would GPL get you banned from the industry ??

Who paid for those Chrome Books? Don't they cost more than a linux laptop?

@@SandraWantsCoke I don’t know, but this is for an entire district of kids, K-12, so I think they wanted something that just works

​@@gavintantleff I'm pretty sure the result was that they bought something that was expensive and didn't work. Nevermind you're probably not at the age where you understand my question. But whenever a large sums of money are involved and "they", which is often the government, buy things for you they will always end up buying what you don't need and always pay too much for it. And when it comes to governments, they usually buy them from their friends so they and their friends take your money (which is tax money when it's government). I don't understand why (at my school also, which was a long time ago) we didn't just use Linux. Linux is amazing. And you can install it on any old mac or pc laptop.

Tysm for the tip, I was really interested in setting up my own replit-like personal server

@@SandraWantsCoke look, as someone who actually was in the district, they worked fine. All of our online schoolwork was on some Google drive tool, which work perfectly fine on chromebooks, so they were very effective for their purpose. Additionally, they had very long battery life, so I can usually go two school days without charging (like if I forgot to charge). Overall, I’d say they chose the tool for the job. Sometimes you have to make trade offs.

Trade secrets are not patents and are not filed because they are secrets. Posting them online, like in replit's blog posts, makes them no longer secrets.

even non-compete are null in some jurisdictions

He did not say "I will not be copying more stuff". According to the intern, that was a mis-quote by the CEO, which according to him does not correctly reflect what he actually said.

good luck get a judge to side with a non-compete against an intern. Such clauses are entirely unreasonable and unenforceable legal hand waving scare tactics.

Non-competes are unenforceable. There is no judge who will say that someone cannot work if they don't work for the previous company anymore. Furthermore, the FTC passed a rule that Will be in place this year that says that nearly every form of noncompete is null and void.

But it can, both in Unity ( I'd be honestly more concerned with using that engine about the installation fee drama ), and in custom engine. In fact that is what a game engine is, you'd just make engine and assets and scripts, then opensource maybe scripts and engine but distribute game with assets as a paid product.

Since he provided them a link to the full code and commit history I feel like if they had a leg to stand on it would have been reasonably easy for them to have have published a counter article and not let him re-publish it.

Intention absolutly matters in a legal context. The prime example is the difference between Murder and manslaughter. And intention can also affect sentencing. At least it does in germany, were the law normally defines punishment for crimes in a spectrum. Let's say starting with a fine up to x years of jail time, depending on the dimensions of the crime, if you're a repeat offender, the circumstances and intent. And i'm pretty sure, it's the same in th US, as one of the jobs of the judge is to determine the sentencing.

@@holzcartoonz9962 Intention matters in some legal contexts, mainly where a certain intention either determines the legality or the severity of an action. But generally, intention is not relevant in the context in which I used it. You get fined whether or not you knew that you were speeding/stealing/leaking if this is what you objectively did. Murder is a special case because the intention is what defines murder and distinguishes it from various other forms of killing, many of which are or can be legal (when you are acting in self defense, working as a soldier on the battle field, etc.). There is a lot of confusion about that in the USA. For example whether Trump actually believed that he lost the election. That might well be relevant for some of the conspiracy charges he faces, but it's not generally relevant for the criminality of the vast majority of his misdeeds. Otherwise Snowden would not be a Russian citizen today. The situation in Germany is very different from the US, even though there the intention is even less prevalent. It's a proverbial principle that ignorance does not protect you from prosecution. Judges in Germany have much more autonomy and discretion than in the US and the prosecution has the obligation to prosecute crimes (which it doesn't in the US) and there are no juries. All of that put together makes it very difficult to compare the two situations, but the impact of intentions on the determination of the legality of actions is actually pretty much the same: It's minimal unless it's part of the definition of the offense, Intentions almost always affect the severity of penalties though - unless the state makes a living on these penalties (speeding/parking).

We're so far into late-stage capitalism that people are intuitively beginning to treat companies like people 😢

they accused him of trade secret not DMCA. their code most likely look like other projects code its unwise to open that can of worm on their asses.

that is usually reserved for when doing reverse engineering, so they can't say you just copied code X directly.

Open source doesn't mean free to use. Licenses exist for all software, open source ones are not exception.

If I understood correctly, they wanted him to opensource the part he was working on - the package management. Not the core functionality.

Another way to look at it though is that the logic is the logic. If you’re trying to code something that is similar to something else, even if you had never seen the codebase before, it’s going to turn out quite similar. You can own the rights to your particular codebase, and if it’s copied as is token for token then that is theft. But you can’t own the rights to the concept of software doing a thing. That’s like if Google sued every other search engine because their search engine does search engine things.

=

!

:q

;

gotem