Yes but you wouldn’t actually need to make your clone very different for the copyright to be entirely different and then surely you wouldn’t get sued?

Are you confident enough to bet 6-12 months of dev time and resources(possibly lawyer consultation fees) on that assumption ? because up until recently that’s what someone would need to do to find out.

It might be fine, but the threat of litigation is a part of the deterrent.

But also you can’t really copyright UI beyond the design itself, the functionality is free game as far as I understand.

As with all of these things, it’s region specific.

However, game mechanic patents and copyrights exists and are litigated regularly.

In broad terms this is already covered.

If you made an exact clone of Photoshop by hand you’d get sued into oblivion, and that would be effective because of the barrier to entry ( in time and resources ) you’d need to get to that point.

Meaning you’d be betting all that upfront effort/resource on the a major corporation either not caring, or not being able to mount a reasonable litigation strategy.

Not many actors would be willing to risk that.

The difference here is that the barrier is now much lower and it tangles up a whole bunch of other potential issues around the legality of vibe code.

Regardless of how it shakes out it will almost certainly be a set of rules that only really apply to the peasants.

"If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class.”

This is exactly the question i ask “investment advisor” services when they call asking if i want help managing investments.

For you to have a system that works well enough for me to be interested , there’d be no need for you to spend money on call centers full of people ringing up strangers for money, you could take all of that money and invest it in the plan you are trying to sell me.

For the compsci industries at least, it’s a productivity boost with moderate to extreme consequences in the middle to long term.

Not that that is a problem for CEO’s and companies that work quarter to quarter, but it will be a problem in 5-10 years when they have no senior workers to pick up/fix the problems that LLM’s introduce.

Or for the particularly dim-witted few in the short term who throw money at a problem they don’t understand while ignoring the people they are paying to advise them, thinking they can remove the “unpredictable” human element.

Unless, of course, the LLM’s improve so much in the runway each company has left, so as to eliminate these issues, i think it unlikely, but we’ll see.

No, you define it.

If im asking you it’s because I don’t understand your viewpoint , how would me defining it help with that?

Im seeing a wall of text here so I’m going to split them up into something more coherent.

Should an employee who advocates for abortion rights be able to be fired because their employer doesn’t like the optics of their statement?

Should an employee who vouches for a particular political candidate be able to be fired for it?

The answer to both is that it’s a legal issue, my personal beliefs don’t really factor in to the legal outcome.

I think freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences so consider the (sometimes legally viable, if not morally) consequences of your actions and act accordingly.

I think we can both agree that a person who advocates for the genocide of a people should be punished, but where do you draw the line?

Thats a very rigid position to take on something that has significant subjective nuance.

I’d evaluate on a case by case basis and make a decision based on what I can live with.

As much as I don’t really care for corporate interests, there are real consequences for companies that continue to employ people with controversial views; why would they want to continue to employ those people when they could win back public favor by firing them?

No idea, not sure how it’s relevant but I don’t generally care enough to have an opinion I’d be willing to defend.

Im not being dismissive, I genuinely don’t give corporate PR tactics that much of my headspace unless I have no choice.

I don’t think I could define a line between what’s “accepted” political speech that’s protected against employer reprisal and what’s not. Unless we go old stand-bys, such as calls for violence, which are easy to evade. I’m not suggesting this is an easy or even a possible problem to solve; all I meant was that think employees should be protected from firing for reasonable political statements. What “reasonable” is defined as is a much more complicated question, and I concede I don’t have an answer for it.

Agreed

I wasnt looking for what “acceptable” political opinions consist of, i was wondering how you defined that category in general.

I ask a variation of this question a lot (check my history for examples).

Im not looking for a fight im just bad at understanding ambiguity in some contexts.

I think people should be allowed to make political statements outside of a work context without risking their jobs—but with our current societal norms siding with corporate image concerns, this does seem in-line with the norms of that approach.

Define “political statement”.

Because it looks like you’re putting “this is just like beginning of the holocaust”, “non-whites don’t deserve human rights” and “let’s seriously consider not having a secret police” in the same bracket here.

A statement being a political position doesn’t (or rather shouldn’t) automatically shield you from the other meanings of that statement and writing that off as all being “corporate image concerns” is insidious.

Thats some premium triple-distilled trolling right there, congrats

Edit : I want going to ask, because I didn’t want to ruin the magic but I can’t help myself.

How do you pack it all in like that?

so concise, its almost a haiku.

It could be the loom or it could be laserdisc