alt Hacker NewsThe README (https://github.com/adamtwiss/coda#license) addresses concerns about copyright in good faith and better than most agentic-driven repos:
> After our initial 0.9.0 pre-release (July 2026), community feedback raised that Coda contained AGPL-licensed code. This prompted a full audit of our codebase and dependencies, and steps to correct what it found. We now believe Coda complies with all applicable licenses. If you have any concern, please open a GitHub issue with the details and we'll happily investigate.
Replies
xgulfie • today at 7:57 PM
It's so weird that they think they have to comply with copyright in this case, but not in the case of any other license
mohamedkoubaa • today at 7:37 PM
Imo without the sign off from Reckless it's suspicious
slopinthebag • today at 7:28 PM
"We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing"
The debate is about whether or not the new code qualifies as derived.
They can remove all of the literal code matches from the codebase, but if it was written by having an LLM study the original code and then write something similar, it's hard to argue it's not a derivative work.