Not really, at least not completely.
A couple of months ago in “Saga of Frustration: Developing (and Abandoning) a Lightroom Plugin for 500px” I vented about my horrible experience with the folks over at 500px.com, and said that I would not be developing a plugin for their service (as I have for many photo-hosting services) until they got their act together. A lively discussion followed here on my blog and on Google+.
I noticed today that they finally released their long-promised plugin and I took a look. It seems that they use a bunch of my code under the hood, such as my libraries for SHA-1 Secure Hash computation and HMAC-SHA1 secure signature computation, and for JSON-encoded data consumption and production. The former, in particular, is extremely difficult to do in Lightroom, so without it they may not have been able to do the plugin at all.
I mention this only because it seems somehow ironic, and I wonder whether they even notice the connection between the developer they alienated during the summer and the source of the libraries they later chose to use. If so, did they use my libraries with sheepishness, a smirk, appreciation? It's sort of amusing to wonder.
To be clear, I'm not complaining... I made that code available with the express hope that it would be helpful to those who might want to use it, and it seems that's exactly what's happening here. I did not make its use conditional on attribution or even a kind word of thanks, so I can't fault 500px there, either.
Anyway, I'd given up writing my own plugin because I couldn't get support from them, and I'd needed support from them because their plugin API simply didn't work. I suppose I could take today's events as an indication that at least they finally got their API working, and give my own almost-done plugin another try.... but nah, I don't think so.
I'm not a 500px customer so I didn't actually try the plugin, but if you're their customer and a Lightroom user, give it a try.