Zigbook Is Plagiarizing the Zigtools Playground
11 comments
·November 30, 2025wyldfire
bjt
It's addressed in the post. MIT license. Zigbook is not honoring the attribution requirement. A PR to change that was closed and obfuscated.
kachapopopow
I just can't get over how ridicioulus the "no ai" statement is.
I really love the part where llm.txt has the same notice, something humans will never read, or the fact that llm.txt exists considering that there is distaste for AI in every part of this llm generated book.
darshanime
since zig is famously decentralized, i don't think there is a way to effectively combat bad actors like these? there is no "official zig org" that can disown them
pa7ch
Its the opposite in my understanding. Zig has a BDFL.
Trademarks are the usual cudgel of choice to enforce a bad actor claiming to be part of offcial Zig.
IncreasePosts
In a decentralized but communicating community, this kind of post is raising awareness, and then the others in the community will make their own choices regarding the matter.
wavemode
original submission dicussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45947810
do_not_redeem
I wonder what tools the Zig team has to deal with trolls like this.
Is the zig name or logo trademarked? What about the mascot he's using as his github picture?
They're violating the terms of the MIT license as mentioned in the article, so maybe Zigtools has legal standing.
As for lying about no AI, being an asshole isn't illegal, so no angle there.
Any other ideas I missed?
koakuma-chan
Who cares? They aren't selling it.
jesseb34r
Misinformation and poor learning tools can do real damage to the experience of new zig users, which is incredibly meaningful.
null
Plagiarism is a moral wrong.
But copyright infringement is a legal wrong (a civil liability).
Is what they're doing infringing on a copyrighted work? Or does it fail to uphold license terms? Many open source licenses have some amount of attribution as a requirement, so that'd be something to consider.