If your open source code contains your technical barriers, then don't open source the code with those barriers—only open source the other parts.
If it's the other case, where you're worried about plagiarism, I actually don't think you need to be too concerned. I once saw an interview with Airbnb's founder Brian Chesky where he talked about how Airbnb also faced many imitators in its early days. These competitors grew rapidly too, but looking back, the difference between imitators and originals is that while imitators might get off to a quick start, they find it hard to persevere through difficulties like the original does in the mid-to-late stages. In the end, it's often the original who stuck with their vision that survives.
(Sent via haiker.app — My handmade Hacker News app)
If you are building something which can be vibe-coded easily then it ofc people will create it. You can copyright a product but you can't copyright an Idea.
Selling things online was an idea by Amazon, now everyone sells online.
If you really want people not to copy your idea then make something which cannot be easily vibe-coded or copied easily i.e. which require serious skills.
Seriously, I think you should just do it closed source and pursue adoption by other channels. If people ask you why it's not open source, say you're not ready to manage it yet.
Is your project a vibe-coded application? It sounds like you're insecure about someone copying your idea, which will could happen regardless of licensing if anyone has access to Claude Code and a description of your product.
If your primary motivation to use an Open Source license is gaining trust and users, you're just going to be disappointed.
If your open source code contains your technical barriers, then don't open source the code with those barriers—only open source the other parts.
If it's the other case, where you're worried about plagiarism, I actually don't think you need to be too concerned. I once saw an interview with Airbnb's founder Brian Chesky where he talked about how Airbnb also faced many imitators in its early days. These competitors grew rapidly too, but looking back, the difference between imitators and originals is that while imitators might get off to a quick start, they find it hard to persevere through difficulties like the original does in the mid-to-late stages. In the end, it's often the original who stuck with their vision that survives.
(Sent via haiker.app — My handmade Hacker News app)
If you are building something which can be vibe-coded easily then it ofc people will create it. You can copyright a product but you can't copyright an Idea.
Selling things online was an idea by Amazon, now everyone sells online.
If you really want people not to copy your idea then make something which cannot be easily vibe-coded or copied easily i.e. which require serious skills.
Vibe litigation
Seriously, I think you should just do it closed source and pursue adoption by other channels. If people ask you why it's not open source, say you're not ready to manage it yet.
Is your project a vibe-coded application? It sounds like you're insecure about someone copying your idea, which will could happen regardless of licensing if anyone has access to Claude Code and a description of your product.
If your primary motivation to use an Open Source license is gaining trust and users, you're just going to be disappointed.
I vide-coded some, but the core is hand-craft arch/algorithm, that's the most valuable part I want to protect.
Then it's already gone to AI servers. They slurp your codebase.
totally agree