Hey, Im genuinely sorry about the situation we put you in. We just learned about your articale this morning. Up until 2 hours ago, i thought we were going to be working together.
I think perhaps Adam who's not an engineer doesn't quite understand what owning an open source project means. Lesson learned to let engineers interface with engineers haha. Our lawyers just wanted to protect us from the possibility of you changing the license on the library. But I tried to explain to them that it wasn't a concern because we can always keep using a fork of your library (at least that's my understanding).
I appreciate that, and I'm grateful it happened to me and not someone else.
I suspected I might have got more traction from someone other than Adam, which is why I addressed Andros in my Jan 24th email pointing out the specific section.subsection that's problematic in the contract.
This was the response:
That email in your linked tweet is in the article
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Hey, Im genuinely sorry about the situation we put you in. We just learned about your articale this morning. Up until 2 hours ago, i thought we were going to be working together.
I think perhaps Adam who's not an engineer doesn't quite understand what owning an open source project means. Lesson learned to let engineers interface with engineers haha. Our lawyers just wanted to protect us from the possibility of you changing the license on the library. But I tried to explain to them that it wasn't a concern because we can always keep using a fork of your library (at least that's my understanding).
btw if you look at this tweet, twitter.com/wonderverse_xyz/status...
we did send you an email the day before this publication as well
I appreciate that, and I'm grateful it happened to me and not someone else.
I suspected I might have got more traction from someone other than Adam, which is why I addressed Andros in my Jan 24th email pointing out the specific section.subsection that's problematic in the contract.
This was the response:
That email in your linked tweet is in the article