We have no intention of stealing your IP - we sent you a standard contract from our lawyers, which we are happy to publish. We sent you multiple emails trying to amend the contract as soon as we learned that the contract wording was problematic for you.
We also sent you two emails trying to change the contract to your liking but received no response.
This post surprised us because we thought we were going to be working together. On the phone you told us you still wanted to work with us the day before you made the post.
January 19th was when you learned the contract wording was problematic for me. And you fought it and doubled down and doubled down.
The first email you sent accepting to change the contract was after I tore into Adam on that phone call Jan 27th. That first email is at the bottom of the article, the 2nd one came after time of publishing.
You would have gotten a response, and we could have worked together, if Adam had not told me twice on the call that you wouldn't use augmented-ui if you couldn't own it.
You can only rebuild trust by being honest. The public vision wonder has for the world is something I fully believe in. I wish you success and growth proportionate to the future improvement of your integrity.
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 Jane,
We have no intention of stealing your IP - we sent you a standard contract from our lawyers, which we are happy to publish. We sent you multiple emails trying to amend the contract as soon as we learned that the contract wording was problematic for you.
We also sent you two emails trying to change the contract to your liking but received no response.
This post surprised us because we thought we were going to be working together. On the phone you told us you still wanted to work with us the day before you made the post.
Screenshots included in this tweet:
twitter.com/wonderverse_xyz/status...
Gaslighting won't work either, sorry.
January 19th was when you learned the contract wording was problematic for me. And you fought it and doubled down and doubled down.
The first email you sent accepting to change the contract was after I tore into Adam on that phone call Jan 27th. That first email is at the bottom of the article, the 2nd one came after time of publishing.
You would have gotten a response, and we could have worked together, if Adam had not told me twice on the call that you wouldn't use augmented-ui if you couldn't own it.
You can only rebuild trust by being honest. The public vision wonder has for the world is something I fully believe in. I wish you success and growth proportionate to the future improvement of your integrity.
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