I just don't get it at all.
Why did you give free labour and free time to a for profit company you had no stake in?
See why we are confused?
If they don't care about that as much as they care about preventing unauthorized use of their code, then everyone loses. But you can't know what'll happen unless you take action.
If the OP manage to change it and eventually simplify it to make it significntly different, than the copyright won't hold and you own it as the author. The OP may then create his own brand. He should create his own app if the code doesn't belong to goggle.
I would suggest to make it a payed app, twice the price than Sparrow, and use the earned money to develop android, iOS and iMac version. If google offer to hire him, then request that the code is open source. Maybe Microsoft will have an offer to make too.
Of course Panos could also provide the app for free but he needs to earn a fair money for his work and for a living if we want him to continue and sustain the brand. Maybe another company could make an offer like Canonical for instance.
That's wrong. Whether or not the OP was paid, his code belongs to him, unless one of these two things are true: first, if there was a contract that transferred copyright; second, if the OP was supervised in an employee-like role (work-for-hire).
That's how it is in the U.S. at least, and I believe France is a part of the Berne Convention, so it should be the same or similar there.
Who owns the code? Are you free to open-source it or rebrand it? Did you have any kind of contract?What about your employment situation? Did your meetings with Sparrow's staff, and them sharing artwork, constituted some kind of licensing, agreement or anything? Did Google know about your project?
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know any of the answers. Does anyone know what would happen if they claim that they own the code? Maybe they would have to recognize him as an employee, or a contractor and then pay him for his work. If they allow him to use the code as he pleases, the fact of the company encouraging him to develop the port, and even meeting and sharing some artwork, would it mean that they granted him an implicit licence?
Either way, probably Google's legal team has some work to do.
But none of that implies any sort of formal relationship or gives any reason why the Sparrow team (or Google) should have any sort of responsibility toward him.
It sucks he got burned, but I honestly don't think he has anyone to blame but himself. If you're going to do so much work, either make sure you own the work (and can sell it yourself if the company no longer wants it) or have some legal agreement in place that you get paid for it. Don't leave yourself in a situation where the other person changes their mind and you've got no recourse to recoup your loses.
But with the current state of news delivery operating at Warp 10 with the added bonus of somehow being able to run a hyperdrive engine at the same time and less research actively being done before a story is thoroughly debunked, it irks me.
This isn't like a "source" at Proctor and Gamble, it's what, like one of five people?
So a person contacts the article author and says "I spoke with them at a party or conference, and they denied knowing anything about a Windows client."
That's a credible source? Of course not.
There are many more ways to establish credibility - does your story add up, do you know things you wouldn't without having inside info, can the journalist verify that info with a known insider, have you been a credible source in the past, are you personally known to the journalist, are you a known person in the community, do you have a proven connection to the primary source, etc.
What makes Sparrow on OSX and iOS so good is that it stays true to its OS; that it feels native and blends into the OS with such grace that it's a thrill to work with. In contrast, web apps doesn't suffer much from this since users are used to them looking different, as long as they exist inside their browser environment. But for Sparrow to be successful on Windows, these rules would apply...
I've been somewhat happy with Thunderbird actually, in terms of performance and stability. It's just that the whole codebase seems unwieldy (try developing extensions for it) and may not be around a lot longer.
Really? All of Europe can't provide a team for an e-mail client?
As a European, I feel insulted and pity his display of ignorance and arrogance.
Obviously you might have to change the artwork, since that belongs to google now. Otherwise, it sounds like this is just an email client that YOU wrote.
Sparrow is one of the few reasons I stick with using a mac, and am somewhat fearful of taking another job using windows again. I even tried having outlook configured in a mode to look more sparrow-ish to realize it didn't work without a real "sparrow" experience.
However, since it's been bought out by Google, he's lost all the passion for the application. It's just going to get swallowed up by the shark, and no-one really cares. So, what is the point of releasing an awesome version for it?
Obviously, he's got plenty of options at this time. But, the motivation, the passion, the brand recognition, the love, it's all disappeared. Take the magic out of the cauldron and you're just left with boiled, icky bits.
I don't know enough about the application, or the platform, etc, but open-source it, and make it a client that can connect to multiple platforms. Sounds good?
It kind of seems like the ‘new GMail’ that ought
to be native for all devices(the trend is clearly for
that), was galloped by it’s bigger competitor.
In fact [GMail] may get even worse since
it’s inception was a mighty web app for email.
I see this mentality coming from developers all the time, but you're really not seeing the forest from the trees.
I also watched the YouTube videos showing the interface in action. This client might actually be great, however I couldn't see anything there to blow me away, just some icons with no labels and I hate icons with no labels (the first thing I did in GMail's new interface was to search for the option that restores labeled buttons).
Is this a serious remark (honest question)?
But you have to realize that it is impossible to satisfy everyone, especially when looking at OSX-users and Windows-users, who have such different tastes and demands. Then its probably better to have two different UIs that can bring a great (but not necessarily the same) user experience to two very different crowds.
That's just an excuse for people to make ugly UIs. Aesthetics is an integral part of usability. A UX designer who has no clue about aesthetics is worthless.
In Windows, keyboard acceleration is a first class citizen too and it works better than on any other platform.