This apology is well done. It's humane, humble, acknowledges specific wrongs that were social failures and technical/legal failures, and explains the fixes going forward.
Whatever you may think of Pear AI, or startups playing too fast and loose, IMHO this apology sounds sincere and worthwhile.
I disagree, here's a line which rubs me the wrong way: "We tried to be transparent about what we’d done as much as possible since the beginning of our journey, but that wasn’t good enough." Couple this to "talking about it so publicly online, made it look like we were stealing the work of others as our own."
Contrast that to their comment about "100+ contributors".
It feels like typical deflection.
Also egregious is "We thought the license in the root repo wasn’t that important, so we just generated one that we thought was open."
It's hard to trust someone who would think this in the first place.
They're manipulating the reader into thinking it's their unachievably high moral standards that is to blame here: "...but that wasn’t good enough".
You can't "tried to be transparent about what we’d done" and "made it look like we were stealing the work" at the same time.
Either you announce yourself as "Pear, the VS Code Fork that will change the way you code", or you try to be very low key about it yet hope to retain plausible deniability when people call you on your BS.
> In summary, the apology appears mostly sincere but is tinged with some defensiveness and rationalization, which might affect how it's received, especially by those who were most upset by the initial actions.
Maybe they should pivot to developing an AI powered suite of software license generation and code rebranding and serial number filing and non-apology apology writing plugins for VSCode, so they can say they eat their own dog food.
I can't wait until this trend of reaction video goes away. The constant repetition and setup. It's like an unedited first draft of America's Funniest Home Videos
I'm not really getting that vibe from it, stylistically. I especially feel like ChatGPT (for all its unending shortcomings) would have gone with something more tactful than "that wasn't good enough" -- but this is precisely the kind of thing an undersocialized Computer Guy would actually say with good intentions. In conclusion, while the motivations of the original poster and the provenance of the apology letter text may be debatable, it is important to rem--
Maybe they should do a startup that offers apologies for screwing up fundamentals of a business project instead. That seems to be the tangible thing they can deliver.
I don't think it reflects well on the founders. The explanation about the license is either a lazy lie, or it shows they're incompetent.
> Our intention was to use the Apache 2.0 license like Continue does.
So why didn't they copy the license like they copied the rest of the code?
> We thought the license in the root repo wasn’t that important, so we just generated one that we thought was open.
Why would the license not be important? And why would they think that the one they generated was open? If they were going to blindly copy and paste from chatgpt, why wouldn't they blindly copy and paste from the original codebase instead, which is already known to be open.
Software licenses are a core part of any software company's business model, so I don't believe for a second that these YC-backed founders didn't realize what they were doing.
... With that said, Apache and all other "OSI approved" licenses are open to being exploited like this, so I don't think they're necessarily in the wrong. The apology, however, is 100% bullshit and I wouldn't trust these people with anything.
Meh. Just another variant of the standard corporate "we did everything 100% intentionally but are now backtracking because of public outcry". It isn't a "humane, humble" apology but a PR statement.
Eh, I hadn’t heard about this and now have. Which is wild since I was asked by someone considering trying them just yesterday and I said I frankly had no opinion. Revising that to a negative—I’m not bullish on founders more interested in tweeting than building.
yeah exactly. mistakes happen, they were definitely too influencer-brained in the launch, but its how you handle the feedback that shows your mettle.
still doesnt make pear an investable idea, but the founders showed some humility/ability to read the room here.
conversely, people who dunked on -them- too much showed either their lack of knowledge on open source/startup norms, or their ability to disingenuously ignore that for internet points, and provided many opportunities to be muted.
Here is a clear as day example of a startup who were completely reckless and indifferent to (a) the principles of open source and (b) the concerns of the developer community.
And instead of criticising them you've turned the tables and now the fault is with people like me who are doing this for internet points. Instead of defending what underpins the entire software industry and has contributed so much value to the world.
Whatever you may think of Pear AI, or startups playing too fast and loose, IMHO this apology sounds sincere and worthwhile.