The 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.
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.
Genuine question: if a human did this manually would it be considered derived?
loading story #49188205
loading story #49200204
loading story #49188184
loading story #49191625
loading story #49189102
loading story #49188829
I still think this question is a future minefield, as well as the question of what happens if an LLM outputs a patented algorithm
loading story #49193472
Is the bank lending you money "in good faith"?
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
"We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing"
Imo without the sign off from Reckless it's suspicious