Comment by JumpCrisscross
1 year ago
The wild thing isn’t that they ChatGPT’d license. That’s incompetent but forgivable, maybe even smart.
The move that dials the dumbassery to eleven is using it as a defence. On Twitter. Like, Exhibit A for any lawsuit that company is ever in will be this tweet: it demonstrates a proud disrespect for law and contracts. That’s high-proof mens rea if I’ve ever seen any.
Why is that forgivable? Any serious venture would have a involved, you know, some kind of legal expert to do a license. Getting that wrong at any stage has serious repercussions and can effectively end the whole project.
I was given three pieces of advice on starting up my own business and they were good:
1) Get a lawyer
2) Get an accountant
3) Listen to every word they have to say
> Why is that forgivable?
Because legal naïvete is common and isn't a good predictor of founder ineptitude. Is it better to be legally savvy? Of course. But thinking you can wing it with a license agreement because it's boring and unfamiliar and you're rather focus on building your product is understandable. (In some cases, it might even be the right call.)
Claiming legal naivete is acceptable and sometimes even commendable is probably the most irresponsible thing I've ever read on here.
3 replies →
Disregard for law and not knowing the law are two different things.
ChatGPT'ed license signals to me that whoever does that thinks law is not a serious matter rather BS that can be generated via BS generator.
1 reply →
Legal naïvete is fine. Most of us probably are.
Not realising you're legally naive is beyond stupid. Extraordinarily stupid.
If one can't get a suit to churn put a license while with VC, I don't know how else cloud it get any easier.
I would assume it would be just an email away for a YC statup.