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 ." - https://twitter.com/_nnnick/status/314049798502248448

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.

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.

Or maybe "I misunderstood some issues" really means "I misunderstood some issues". Just saying...

Definitely, it's just speculation on my part. However, it would surprise me if he actually misunderstood what his employer said.

Indeed, but I guess, like people have said there is other information we are not privy too. Glad to see it back though. Personally speaking it was not clear to me why it was taken down in the first place.

EDIT: typo

Either way, good on them for doing the right thing.

I really don't see how someone can misunderstand this. You either can do it or you can't.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

In some societies, a "butt-covering lie" is politeness.

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.

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.

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.

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.