5 ms·

So what's the story?

loceng 14y ago
Probably that it's already out in the wild and might as well take credit for it, and associate positively with it instead of negatively? Or just really clever drama marketing! Kidding.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jimminy 14y ago
Apparently, it was a misunderstanding on his part. "I misunderstood some issues I wrote about earlier today. Chart.js is now back online and available under MIT. http://www.chartjs.org http://www.chartjs.org ." - https://twitter.com/_nnnick/status/314049798502248448 https://twitter.com/_nnnick/status/314049798502248448
- jbrooksuk 14y ago
  I really don't see how someone can misunderstand this. You either can do it or you can't.
  - keithpeter 14y ago
    I gather the author is UK based and working for a UK company. I imagine 'misunderstand' might be a polite way of saying 'we realised that our decision has caused a lot of negative publicity and we are changing our mind'. That is how it works in organisations I have worked for in the past. Or then again, the author could literally have mistaken what the manager said.
    - pekk 14y ago
      That seems less of a polite way of saying, and more like a butt-covering lie. Am I supposed to understand from 'misunderstand' that the company might be climbing down from a stupid mistake it made, or actually be misled?
      - keithpeter 14y ago
        I have no idea about this specific case at all. Could be either a genuine case of the author hearing one thing and the company meaning another, or a change of mind by the company, possibly involving higher ups.
      - Robin_Message 14y ago
        In some societies, a "butt-covering lie" is politeness.
      - claudius 14y ago
        > Am I supposed to understand from 'misunderstand' that the company might be climbing down from a stupid mistake it made, or actually be misled? No, and you are not supposed to be able to understand. Otherwise being polite and claiming to have misunderstood something wouldn’t make any sense, as it would be equivalent to blaming the company directly.
      - mseebach 14y ago
        It's not necessarily any of your business. The code is back, why do you need to know the full and whole truth about his dealings with his employer? And what's wrong with letting someone save a bit of face when they came out on the right end of something after all?
        pc86 14y ago
        Thank you. It is nobody's business here but Nick's what happened. Take his words at face value and assume he misunderstood his boss unless you have reason to believe otherwise and it actually matters.
        latterd 14y ago
        > It's not necessarily any of your business I think this is wrong, Nick initally posted to the Internet - without caveat's - I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask question's and intrigue.
    - keefe 14y ago
      I read that might as dripping with sarcasm... it's highly unlikely he would have taken it down if they hadn't flipped the bitch switch and now that the internet militia is tracking them down they flipped it all the way to nice.
    - gosub 14y ago
      http://www.anglotopia.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Anglo-vs-EU.jpeg http://www.anglotopia.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Anglo-v...
  - nevinera 14y ago
    The employer probably wanted to talk to him about it, to decide whether there really was enough similar tech (or even shared code) that it might harm the company. That's basic due diligence. Probably after going over it, they determined that it would present no harm. Notice that this was not a legal process, just an employer and developer communicating.
  - evan_ 14y ago
    Well, what it means is he thought that he couldn't, but then he found out that his understanding was wrong, and he actually could.
  - TheCoelacanth 14y ago
    It wouldn't always be that clear cut. His employer's policy might be something like "outside projects are allowed as long as you don't use knowledge that you gained from working there". That could easily be interpreted more broadly than it was intended. He could interpret it as "I learned Javascript while working there, so I can't release a project in Javascript" or something like that, when they really intended it to prevent use of non-publicly available information related to their business.
- darxius 14y ago
  Looks like maybe the employer agreed to let him release chart.js as long as he didn't make the employer look bad? Maybe "I misunderstood some issues" really means "I spoke with my employer and they've changed their minds but I'm going to be polite about it". Just an idea.
  - analog 14y ago
    Either way, good on them for doing the right thing.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    Let me present another side to this, as I am sometimes the guy sitting on the opposite side from the developer :) (I have no idea what happened in this specific case). Usually, when someone does something mildly serious (we are just wrist-slappy about the minor stuff, unless you do it multiple times, or intentionally) without following the process, first I verify they actually did it without any accusation at all. This often takes the form "It looks like you did X. Is this right or am I misunderstanding?". If they did in fact, do it, I then say "Hey, just so you know, this could be an issue. I need to talk with some folks, and then we should talk and figure out together what to do about this. You <do/don't> need to do anything in the meanwhile" . Whether they need to do anything depends on the issue, but I am explicit about whether anything needs to be done. At this point, the reactions vary from "oh shit, sorry, i didn't realize i was supposed to something different" to "fuck the police". In any case, despite me explicitly telling them they did not need to do anything, there are still cases where someone will do something like take the project down (sometimes intentionally believing it will force my hand, sometimes not), and claim we told them to. I go and talk with various folks like I said I would, then the person involved, we all decide we don't care (or do), and then it gets put back (or not), or whatever modifications needed are made. Usually if it's put back, this is accompanied by text like you see, stating that they misunderstood some issues. In most cases i've dealt with, this is actually an accurate statement of what occurred, and not us trying to save face. After all, I told them they did not need to do anything! Of course, I won't deny there are times i've told folks to hide/take down projects. But in those cases, we don't later try to save face. I could completely see other companies not knowing what they are doing, and telling folks to take stuff down as a knee jerk. It definitely happens. But without more facts here, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that this is what occurred.

Probably that it's already out in the wild and might as well take credit for it, and associate positively with it instead of negatively? Or just really clever drama marketing! Kidding.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jimminy 14y ago

Apparently, it was a misunderstanding on his part. "I misunderstood some issues I wrote about earlier today. Chart.js is now back online and available under MIT. http://www.chartjs.org http://www.chartjs.org ." - https://twitter.com/_nnnick/status/314049798502248448 https://twitter.com/_nnnick/status/314049798502248448

jbrooksuk 14y ago
I really don't see how someone can misunderstand this. You either can do it or you can't.
- keithpeter 14y ago
  I gather the author is UK based and working for a UK company. I imagine 'misunderstand' might be a polite way of saying 'we realised that our decision has caused a lot of negative publicity and we are changing our mind'. That is how it works in organisations I have worked for in the past. Or then again, the author could literally have mistaken what the manager said.
  - pekk 14y ago
    That seems less of a polite way of saying, and more like a butt-covering lie. Am I supposed to understand from 'misunderstand' that the company might be climbing down from a stupid mistake it made, or actually be misled?
    - keithpeter 14y ago
      I have no idea about this specific case at all. Could be either a genuine case of the author hearing one thing and the company meaning another, or a change of mind by the company, possibly involving higher ups.
    - Robin_Message 14y ago
      In some societies, a "butt-covering lie" is politeness.
    - claudius 14y ago
      > Am I supposed to understand from 'misunderstand' that the company might be climbing down from a stupid mistake it made, or actually be misled? No, and you are not supposed to be able to understand. Otherwise being polite and claiming to have misunderstood something wouldn’t make any sense, as it would be equivalent to blaming the company directly.
    - mseebach 14y ago
      It's not necessarily any of your business. The code is back, why do you need to know the full and whole truth about his dealings with his employer? And what's wrong with letting someone save a bit of face when they came out on the right end of something after all?
      - pc86 14y ago
        Thank you. It is nobody's business here but Nick's what happened. Take his words at face value and assume he misunderstood his boss unless you have reason to believe otherwise and it actually matters.
      - latterd 14y ago
        > It's not necessarily any of your business I think this is wrong, Nick initally posted to the Internet - without caveat's - I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask question's and intrigue.
  - keefe 14y ago
    I read that might as dripping with sarcasm... it's highly unlikely he would have taken it down if they hadn't flipped the bitch switch and now that the internet militia is tracking them down they flipped it all the way to nice.
  - gosub 14y ago
    http://www.anglotopia.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Anglo-vs-EU.jpeg http://www.anglotopia.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Anglo-v...
- nevinera 14y ago
  The employer probably wanted to talk to him about it, to decide whether there really was enough similar tech (or even shared code) that it might harm the company. That's basic due diligence. Probably after going over it, they determined that it would present no harm. Notice that this was not a legal process, just an employer and developer communicating.
- evan_ 14y ago
  Well, what it means is he thought that he couldn't, but then he found out that his understanding was wrong, and he actually could.
- TheCoelacanth 14y ago
  It wouldn't always be that clear cut. His employer's policy might be something like "outside projects are allowed as long as you don't use knowledge that you gained from working there". That could easily be interpreted more broadly than it was intended. He could interpret it as "I learned Javascript while working there, so I can't release a project in Javascript" or something like that, when they really intended it to prevent use of non-publicly available information related to their business.
darxius 14y ago
Looks like maybe the employer agreed to let him release chart.js as long as he didn't make the employer look bad? Maybe "I misunderstood some issues" really means "I spoke with my employer and they've changed their minds but I'm going to be polite about it". Just an idea.
- analog 14y ago
  Either way, good on them for doing the right thing.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Let me present another side to this, as I am sometimes the guy sitting on the opposite side from the developer :) (I have no idea what happened in this specific case). Usually, when someone does something mildly serious (we are just wrist-slappy about the minor stuff, unless you do it multiple times, or intentionally) without following the process, first I verify they actually did it without any accusation at all. This often takes the form "It looks like you did X. Is this right or am I misunderstanding?". If they did in fact, do it, I then say "Hey, just so you know, this could be an issue. I need to talk with some folks, and then we should talk and figure out together what to do about this. You <do/don't> need to do anything in the meanwhile" . Whether they need to do anything depends on the issue, but I am explicit about whether anything needs to be done. At this point, the reactions vary from "oh shit, sorry, i didn't realize i was supposed to something different" to "fuck the police". In any case, despite me explicitly telling them they did not need to do anything, there are still cases where someone will do something like take the project down (sometimes intentionally believing it will force my hand, sometimes not), and claim we told them to. I go and talk with various folks like I said I would, then the person involved, we all decide we don't care (or do), and then it gets put back (or not), or whatever modifications needed are made. Usually if it's put back, this is accompanied by text like you see, stating that they misunderstood some issues. In most cases i've dealt with, this is actually an accurate statement of what occurred, and not us trying to save face. After all, I told them they did not need to do anything! Of course, I won't deny there are times i've told folks to hide/take down projects. But in those cases, we don't later try to save face. I could completely see other companies not knowing what they are doing, and telling folks to take stuff down as a knee jerk. It definitely happens. But without more facts here, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that this is what occurred.