I’m a little bit in the camp of ‘it might be legal, but that doesn’t mean it is ok’. So I get why people are annoyed. Also copying a whole project and then slamming a different license on it and going ‘jobs done’ very much fits the promptfondler vibe, so im not mad, more of a ‘lol, of course they did’ thing. But that is me.
Literally the only thing Apache license requires is attribution. It is very hard to violate the Apache license. But through the power of ChatGPT, these guys did—indeed—manage to violate the license.
Apache explicitly allows this. I don’t get why OSI bros are endlessly surprised by this.
They apparently copied without attribution in a manner that was a violation? I’m still looking for precise wording of the PEL.
It’s very hard to violate the Apache license, but these are the sort of bozos who could manage it.
EDIT: Here is the PEL. It lacks the attribution requirements of section 4 of the Apache Licence 2.0. So yeah, they managed it.
This is a small technical violation that’s easily remedied, but I understand that’s what got people pissed off.
I’m a little bit in the camp of ‘it might be legal, but that doesn’t mean it is ok’. So I get why people are annoyed. Also copying a whole project and then slamming a different license on it and going ‘jobs done’ very much fits the promptfondler vibe, so im not mad, more of a ‘lol, of course they did’ thing. But that is me.
It’s a little illegal and a lot christ what assholes
Yeah, pretty bad coverage of that by the article.
Apache isn’t GPL, and it isn’t an oversight that it allows closed source derivative works.
Literally the only thing Apache license requires is attribution. It is very hard to violate the Apache license. But through the power of ChatGPT, these guys did—indeed—manage to violate the license.