The point of this story is that open source can't protect you against a bully with a legal department at his command, and neither can it protect you against bad contract clauses. Frivolous legal threats may be frivolous, but you have to prove that in court and a lot of companies would rather take the easier way out to avoid having to do that.

The "FOSS" company never directly threatened the author, but the implication of it alone was enough to scare off both agencies. Given a lot of the tech is mixed up here on purpose, there's a few FOSS companies & vendors I can think of with legal departments that I'd describe as "pretty aggressive" and "expensive for a managed solution" that aren't solely about Exchange related services but would definitely behave like this, given their PR over the years at times has had slipped masks.

The point is: always own your data

The naming and shaming should be the top organic google result. People need to own their reputation.

> What's the point of this story? Bad actors win?

Know your contracts. Read the fine print. Be careful who you do business with. Not all companies selling services for open source software embrace the ethos that we assume they do.

After reading the story, I can understand why somebody would not name and shame. The author could be inviting lawsuits from a company that clearly has no qualms playing dirty.

What if the vendors or management have organised crime connections? It's not worth your kneecaps.

>Here's a hot take: Name and Shame.

That's easier said than done, hence why Stefano probably didn't.

[dead]