I think the problem is more that they weren't honest about the origins, even if we disregard the point where they themselves break the license terms.

> DeepDelver recognized that Pathways looked a lot like Sim.ai’s open source agent-building product called SimStudio and asked Delve if it was based on SimStudio. The Delve folks said they built it themselves, the whistleblower contends.

If they were upfront about that it was a fork, and attributed it, sounds like there wouldn't have been any issues here at all.

> outside of lacking attribution / retaining copyright, I don't see a problem?

That's a bit like a shoplifter saying "well, outside of not paying for it, I don't see a problem?".

Apache 2.0 clearly says you must include the license, include copyright, state any changes you've made and include the NOTICE file. None of that was done, so this is a pretty clear violation of the license. The copyright holders can demand that this is fixed immediately, seek at least an injunction if that does not happen, and maybe even claim profits made from selling the software while violating the license.

You don't see a problem with a startup dedicated to handling legal compliance for customers repeatedly botching even rudimentary legal compliance of its own?

> The project is Apache licensed, so even if they took it, outside of lacking attribution / retaining copyright, I don't see a problem? They would be require to add it to an "About" tab or something.

They used it without having a license. The apache license would have allowed them to use it, but they didn’t meet the conditions.

This sounds equivalent to using paid software without paying to me.

The original author could well claim that “the cost of a license under the terms which they used it is $2M”. After all, the cost of software licenses is entirely arbitrary and set by the author (copyright owner).

Sometimes people consider morality instead of legality.

If you start a business relationship with people who rip-off and cover-up, you're going to have a bad time.

But they didn't attribute it. Or does this not really matter?

Ask yourself why they didn’t do that in the first place.

This hilarious meme continues to prove itself correct again and again https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/why-i-use-the-gpl-and-not-cuc...

Yep. While maybe it's "not cool," (I guess, depending on how much work Delve did in their fork, in which case it could be "totally cool"), there is no legal problem with doing this and if someone is "blowing the whistle" about this, they don't really understand open source.