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.
> 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.