Some will argue that what we do is exploitative, that we are extracting the ideas from open source while leaving behind the people who contributed them. To this I say: yes, that is a reasonably accurate description of our business model. It is also a reasonably accurate description of every company that has ever used open source software without contributing back, which is to say, virtually every company that has ever used open source software. We are simply being honest about it, and charging a fee for the privilege.
This service is provided "as is" without warranty. MalusCorp is not responsible for any legal consequences, moral implications, or late-night guilt spirals resulting from use of our services.
Some will argue that what we do is exploitative, that we are extracting the ideas from open source while leaving behind the people who contributed them.
How is that different from those who create a FOSS project to create a FOSS alternative to a commercial product? The process is simply less formal for these FOSS devs. Neither sides looks at original source code, both sides rely on observed behavior and reimplements that in a new way. FOSS having "noble" intentions and MalusCorp having "less-than-noble" intentions does not change this fact.
"Malus [...] is modeled after the IBM case and uses one AI agent to write the specifications and a different agent to produce the code, creating that 'clean room' effect. [...] Blanchard also conceded that Claude, which like all LLMs, was trained on vast amounts of data scraped indiscriminately from the internet and was exposed to the original chardet in its training, but maintains his version is not derivative."
So, it's not a clean room at all: they're just calling it that.
Nope, those are two compilers. One transforms code into an intermediate language in which the program is expressed as a specification that contains all the functionality of the original program, i.e. is a derived work. Then another compiler takes the program in the intermediate language and creates code from it (source or binary doesn't matter). Contrary to what AI evangelists want you to believe, it does matter whether something is an automatic process or involves creative thought. Also, what's with the fo
When my Malus clone fails, can I buy support from the original project? From Malus? What do you mean I'm on my own?
Some will argue that what we do is exploitative, that we are extracting the ideas from open source while leaving behind the people who contributed them. To this I say: yes, that is a reasonably accurate description of our business model. It is also a reasonably accurate description of every company that has ever used open source software without contributing back, which is to say, virtually every company that has ever used open source software. We are simply being honest about it, and charging a fee for the privilege.
This service is provided "as is" without warranty. MalusCorp is not responsible for any legal consequences, moral implications, or late-night guilt spirals resulting from use of our services.
Some will argue that what we do is exploitative, that we are extracting the ideas from open source while leaving behind the people who contributed them.
How is that different from those who create a FOSS project to create a FOSS alternative to a commercial product? The process is simply less formal for these FOSS devs. Neither sides looks at original source code, both sides rely on observed behavior and reimplements that in a new way. FOSS having "noble" intentions and MalusCorp having "less-than-noble" intentions does not change this fact.
"Malus [...] is modeled after the IBM case and uses one AI agent to write the specifications and a different agent to produce the code, creating that 'clean room' effect. [...] Blanchard also conceded that Claude, which like all LLMs, was trained on vast amounts of data scraped indiscriminately from the internet and was exposed to the original chardet in its training, but maintains his version is not derivative."
So, it's not a clean room at all: they're just calling it that.
Nope, those are two compilers. One transforms code into an intermediate language in which the program is expressed as a specification that contains all the functionality of the original program, i.e. is a derived work. Then another compiler takes the program in the intermediate language and creates code from it (source or binary doesn't matter). Contrary to what AI evangelists want you to believe, it does matter whether something is an automatic process or involves creative thought. Also, what's with the fo