Talk:Anthropic's Claude Code source leak - Revision history

Linka: /* Relevance discussion */ Reply

2026-05-28T08:10:35Z

Relevance discussion: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:10, 28 May 2026
Line 5:		Line 5:

	To add my thoughts here: I'm not seeing how this is related to or affects consumer rights. One could perhaps argue that the take-down of legitimate repositories constitutes an issue, however even that is ''very'' tenuous. Such persons being affected would not have even occurred in the first place if other users in the communities hadn't ''knowingly'' uploaded infringing content. The fault lies much more on them than it does Anthropic. — [[User:Sojourna\|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna\|talk]]) 03:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)		To add my thoughts here: I'm not seeing how this is related to or affects consumer rights. One could perhaps argue that the take-down of legitimate repositories constitutes an issue, however even that is ''very'' tenuous. Such persons being affected would not have even occurred in the first place if other users in the communities hadn't ''knowingly'' uploaded infringing content. The fault lies much more on them than it does Anthropic. — [[User:Sojourna\|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna\|talk]]) 03:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

			:I agree that it wouldn't have happened if people did not post the source code, though it was anthropic's fault it became public just like it's their fault for doing a carpet-bombing removal or any repositories without checking what they are, just because the dmca tool allows them to.
			:I could change the perspective of the incident on the page from the source code leak to just the dmca "abusa", the leak part would just be part of the background [[User:Linka\|Linka]] ([[User talk:Linka\|talk]]) 08:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Sojourna: /* Relevance discussion */

2026-05-28T04:00:27Z

Relevance discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:00, 28 May 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Relevance discussion ==		==Relevance discussion==

	Just starting this discussion for people to talk about whether or not this page is relevant @[[User:Tracerneo\|Tracerneo]] @[[User:Linka\|Linka]]		Just starting this discussion for people to talk about whether or not this page is relevant @[[User:Tracerneo\|Tracerneo]] @[[User:Linka\|Linka]]

	In general it's best practice to start a relevancy discussion when marking a page as irrelevant, so that previous contributors have an opportunity to understand and respond to the reasons why it has been marked as such. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 01:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)		In general it's best practice to start a relevancy discussion when marking a page as irrelevant, so that previous contributors have an opportunity to understand and respond to the reasons why it has been marked as such. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 01:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

			To add my thoughts here: I'm not seeing how this is related to or affects consumer rights. One could perhaps argue that the take-down of legitimate repositories constitutes an issue, however even that is ''very'' tenuous. Such persons being affected would not have even occurred in the first place if other users in the communities hadn't ''knowingly'' uploaded infringing content. The fault lies much more on them than it does Anthropic. — [[User:Sojourna\|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna\|talk]]) 03:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Keith: /* Relevance discussion */ new section

2026-05-28T01:52:00Z

Relevance discussion: new section

New page

== Relevance discussion ==

Just starting this discussion for people to talk about whether or not this page is relevant @[[User:Tracerneo|Tracerneo]] @[[User:Linka|Linka]]

In general it's best practice to start a relevancy discussion when marking a page as irrelevant, so that previous contributors have an opportunity to understand and respond to the reasons why it has been marked as such. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 01:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)