Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

... because the AGPL would for sure stop them from using the code without giving anything back considering that they didn't even pay the author for his contract work.



If the deadbeat client was using his work, he had recourse. It might take forever to chase his money down, but it's much easier to shut a site down.

By releasing the code under a permissive license, he gave up that recourse. His client's right to use the code is now a grey area. Technically, he has the same recourse in court as he did before; contracts. But he's severed the connection between that and the deployment of his code.

I'm not expressing nerdly outrage at how he did it. I'm simply suggesting a tactical refinement for the next person who decides to dump dox to Github when a client doesn't pay.


>If the deadbeat client was using his work, he had recourse.

Not in China.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: