EDIT: I mean the screenshots are irrefutable evidence of how bad this has escalated - it started as a normal convo and went downwards like the CEO was out to get some blood for no reason ... now I guess you're gonna get a lawyer threat letter to take down the whole blogpost because you've revealed private conversations without both parties' consent?
Absent any NDA or other contract, there is nothing requiring the other party’s consent to publish correspondence in the US.
> 3. Offensive to a Reasonable Person: Publication of the private facts in question must be offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
The question is about whether it is illegal to publish a private email.
Finally someone raising the valid point about "it all depends on the legal paperwork signed."
That sounds like a a disingenuous way of admitting that he knows he’s lying.
What if you invite them into your home and then 2 years later you see they have decorated their dogs house with obvious inspiration from your own home decor.
But your interpretation seems way too generous when he compares it to going into your house and stealing from you.
> There is a difference between copying a feature and actually getting intro a contract, and access to the code, copying it and calling it open-source.
> As a matter of principle, when someone goes into your home and steals from you, even if it's not material, you have to respond.
EDIT: Added quote. The implication seems to be that he thinks source code was stolen and this has nothing to do with design.
[0] https://intuitiveexplanations.com/tech/replit/#is-replit-rig...
"it" could refers to the feature, not the code. That sentence is clearly ambiguous, the meaning slightly change based on what it refers to.
The most coherent interpretation of that sentence is that "it" refers to code in both instances. However, the intent of a sentence is not always the same as it's most coherent interpretation and "it" misuse is a frequent cause of unintentional ambiguity. (That's why I qualified my statement with the "implication seems to be" language.)