3 ms·
Forgive my ignorance, but why couldn't you work to replace it, or at least revert the commit? If it was completely open source, they would have to prove that y
by drekipus 5y ago
Forgive my ignorance, but why couldn't you work to replace it, or at least revert the commit?
If it was completely open source, they would have to prove that you accepted code maliciously, ie: knowing that the code was proprietary and for unfair advantage, etc.
Do you feel like they were bluffing? Because I definitely do.
- phendrenad2 5y agoLawyers will always ask for the most favorable outcome for their client, which in this case was the GP deleting the project. Had the GP gotten their own lawyer (or even "call their bluff" by letting them either take it to court or GTFO), I'm guessing they could have kept the project. (Of course, if GP knew before merging the code that it was someone else's code, then things are likely different, and going to court might not be favorable)
- judge2020 5y agoThey could argue that the git commit history being immutable means that they have to delete the entire repository to remedy the existence of the proprietary code being available for download. The best way to continue would be to either rewrite history (eg. with BFG) or fix it, destroy the git history, then start from scratch.
- splix 5y agoI think it was not about those lines, and they didn't want to listen. I believe the court would rule to just "revert it" but I didn't have money to go to court anyway. I'm not sure that I would spend money on lawyers if I had a CLA, but at least it would give me a leverage in conversation.