[dotty-]

The beauty of forking/open source is the ability to contribute back to the original project or take over an abandoned project. In this case, the original project Continue.dev isn't abandoned and actually has more traction/commits than the PearAI fork. But what PearAI did not do is a traditional fork. They took the commit history, re-branded everything to PearAI, pushed it up to their own repo, and claimed that the contributors of VSCode & Continue were their own contributors on Twitter.

That's not the spirit of open source. I'm sure the authors of Continue.dev did not intend for their work to be used this way, even if the license is permissive of it.

[lupire]

The license is literally a statement of intent.

If they wanted to police use, they could choose a different license, like one of the GPL or CC variants.

[neilv]

I'm not sure how to parse this, and one possibility is worse than the other.

Did they go through and alter each commit in the history, making it look as if the committer was talking about brand B instead of brand A at the time they made the commit?

Or did they clone the commit history, and add commits to rebrand, while keeping the historical commits intact?

[jmull]

Well, VS code isn't abandoned either. Shall we raise the pitchforks against Continue too?

[dotty-]

No, because Continue actually added value on top of VS Code. PearAI has not added value on top of Continue -- yet.

[pessimizer]

> That's not the spirit of open source.

That's because there's literally no such thing. It's a licensing choice, not a seance. If you don't want people to use your code, license it correctly.