> "Delve allegedly took an open source tool and passed it off as its own work without proper license attribution. The Delve folks said they built it themselves, the whistleblower contends. DeepDelver then presented alleged evidence that this tool was actually a fork — a modified copy — of SimStudio, changed just enough to be passed off as Delve’s own. If that proves true, it would be a violation of the Apache software license, which requires the original developer be credited."

https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/01/the-reputation-of-troubled...

Their defense in this article:

> "falsely claims we “stole” from another YC company when in reality we built on an Apache 2.0 open-source repository"

I'm really confused. Unlikely that they misunderstood the accusation. This looks a bit like admitting to half of the accusation, while completely misrepresenting what the accusation was, so that they could say that the whistleblower is a liar.

Any e2e encryption provided by the same entity who fully controls both the blackbox clients, and the server in between, is just a security theatre that they can selectively bypass anytime with very little risk of detection. Not really much better than simple client to server encryption.

Truly safe e2e requires open source client provided by a trusted entity who is as much as possible independent from the one who provides the untrusted transport layer. Eg how pgp email works.

Doing that in the opposite order would obviously harm adoption of my crippled extension API and push users to competing browsers which kept supporting the advanced API.

Express the header text size with CSS calc function with a sum of em (relative) and px (absolute) values. Depending on their ratio, element will be more or less scalable. 100% em -> scales like body text, 100% px -> no scaling.

I agree that the title is misleading and should be changed. I also expected LG webOS.

But it also feels like essentially "pirating" the webpages while erasing their brand. Maybe it's even a tolerable transitive situation, but you can't even argue it's beneficial in the same way as game piracy could be according to some. In the long term, we need an incentive for the content creators to willingly allow such processing. Otherwise, a lot of high quality content will eventually become members-only with DRM-like anti agent protections.

The incentive doesn't have to be monetary. I could for example imagine some website owners allow AI agents that commit to upfront verbatim repeating some sort of mandatory headers/messages/acknowledgements from the content authors, before copying or summarizing, and are known to stick to this commitment.

You can also bypass the problem already now by accessing and copying the content manually, and then putting it in the context of a tool like NotebookLM. Nobody's hurt, because you have actually seen the source by yourself, and that's all the website owners can reasonably demand.

TL;DR: why even post quality content in open if the audience won't see your ads, your donation button, or even your name. What do you think?

To me this invalidates their whole claim that Cloudflare fails to tell the difference between scraper and user-driven agent. Instead, distinguishing them is trivial, and the block is intentional.

Website owners have a right to block both if they wish. Isn't it obvious that bypassing a bot block is a violation of the owners right to decide whom to admit?

Perplexity's almost seems to believe that "robots.txt was only made for scraping bots, so if our bot is not scraping, it's fair for us to ignore it and bypass the enforcement". And their core business is a bot, so they really should have known better.

But with all these mentions of democratizing and opposing centralization, the licensing model seems unclear to me. The Croquet Microverse is Apache-licensed but "built on top of Croquet OS" which seems to be proprietary with paid and centralized server. Does anyone understand whether at least the client side component of the Croquet OS, which interfaces with the Microverse, is open source so that alternative server implementation could be developed without legally dubious reverse engineering of the protocol?