The PearAI Forking Controversy: Open Source or Misleading Clone?

The open-source software community has long championed collaboration and transparency, but as the case of PearAI reveals, it’s not always as idealistic as it seems.

At the centre of this controversy is a debate about what it means to use open-source code ethically versus exploiting it for personal gain. PearAI, a startup associated with Y Combinator (YC), has found itself under fire for allegedly copying Continue.dev, another YC-backed project.

This situation shines a harsh light on the limits and loopholes of open-source licensing—and raises concerns about whether elite accelerators like YC are properly vetting the companies they endorse.

The Accusation: Forking, Rebranding, and Misleading Claims

As the posts above indicate, the core issue is PearAI’s claim that they built a novel product, when, in fact, it appears to be a fork of Continue.dev’s codebase.

For those unfamiliar with the term, forking refers to taking the source code from an existing project (usually open source) and creating a separate project with it. This practice, while allowed under many open-source licenses such as the Apache License, becomes ethically dubious when the new project fails to acknowledge the original creators and markets itself as an entirely new product.

PearAI reportedly took Continue.dev’s code, rebranded it, and then went as far as to replace every instance of "Continue" with "PearAI." A Redditor’s post and the GitHub pull request from PearAI's repository further expose the extent of this duplication, calling it a mass rebranding rather than genuine innovation.

While PearAI admitted to forking VSCode and Continue, it’s the misrepresentation of contributors from the original project as their own that sparked outrage.

The ethical breach here isn’t just about copying code—it’s about undermining the spirit of open-source collaboration by not giving credit where it's due. Moreover, it's misleading to the users, investors, and potential collaborators, creating a false image of innovation.

Y Combinator's Due Diligence in Question

What makes this situation more troubling is the fact that both PearAI and Continue.dev are part of Y Combinator’s portfolio.

Y Combinator is one of the world’s most prestigious startup accelerators, having nurtured tech giants like Dropbox, Airbnb, and Stripe. But this incident raises an important question: how rigorous is their vetting process?

Given that PearAI and Continue.dev are both YC companies, it seems that the accelerator either missed or chose to overlook this glaring overlap. Critics, as seen in the comments, argue that Y Combinator’s focus on backing founders with "pedigree" (elite academic backgrounds, work experience at FAANG companies) may have led to a more relaxed level of scrutiny.

If the accusations are true, YC has essentially backed a company that repackaged someone else's work as their own.

This incident seems to reflect a larger pattern of privilege, where founders with impressive credentials can sometimes operate with less scrutiny or accountability. The Redditor aptly summarises this sentiment: "Once you have pedigree… you pretty get a less scrutinised ride into YC or so it seems at this point."

The Fragility of Open Source: Lessons Learned

This controversy also touches on a larger and more troubling issue in the open-source community: the vulnerability of open-source projects to exploitation. While open-source licenses allow anyone to use, modify, and even profit from code, they often do so in the hopes of fostering collaboration, not appropriation.

The post highlights an important lesson for smaller companies and independent developers: "unless you are a big corp, open sourcing a final product is a bad idea." It points out that while open-sourcing code libraries and lower-level software (like io.js or Node.js) is manageable, releasing a fully functional product leaves you wide open to being cloned by someone with more resources.

In PearAI’s case, using the Apache License (which permits forking and commercial use) provides legal cover for their actions. However, that doesn’t excuse them from what many view as unethical behavior.

Open source should be about "working together to build something great," not "stealing" the hard work of others and presenting it as your own.

Garry Tan’s Defense: Missing the Point?

Garry Tan, Y Combinator's president and CEO, has responded to the backlash by invoking the open-source nature of the project: "It's open source." Legally, this is true. The Apache License does, in fact, allow for such forking and rebranding. However, Tan’s defense misses a critical point: just because something is legally permissible doesn’t make it ethical.

The open-source model works on trust and mutual respect. PearAI’s actions may fall within the letter of the law, but they clearly violate the spirit of open-source cooperation. Open source should encourage transparency, collaboration, and shared credit—not opportunistic rebranding.

At the heart of this issue is a distinction between legally permissible behavior and ethically sound conduct.

Yes, PearAI may have operated within the bounds of the Apache License, but in doing so, they undermined the principles of fairness and transparency that should guide open-source development. YC, meanwhile, has been called out for its failure to scrutinise the companies it funds more closely.

In the end, this case may serve as a wake-up call for developers who believe in the ideals of open source, as well as for investors and accelerators who want to avoid being associated with ethically questionable behavior. After all, open source is supposed to empower collaboration, not enable opportunistic cloning.

‍