4 ms·
> I mean, funding projects is nice, but doing so while requiring the projects you fund to do what you request (see Freenode/Snoonet and other VPNs) Do you have
by pyre 9y ago
> I mean, funding projects is nice, but doing so while requiring the projects you fund to do what you request (see Freenode/Snoonet and other VPNs)
Do you have proof of PIA "required the projects [they] fund to what [they] request?" Do you have proof that the takeover of Freenode is related to that?
I'll agree that the takeover of Freenode is troubling, but you are making unsubstantiated claims, stating them as fact, and mixing in things that are actually facts (as if they somehow make your claims more true).
- kuschku 9y agoAs someone else helpfully mentioned, > Freenode is registered as a "private company limited by guarantee without share capital" performing "activities of other membership organisations not elsewhere classified", with Christel and Andrew Lee (PIA's founder) as officers, and Andrew Lee having the majority of voting rights. Any profits are not to be distributed under their articles of association, making it a not-for-profit company. This means that Andrew Lee has lone control over freenode, holding the majority of voting rights. That's all I need to know to see that this is not him just funding projects, but actually about getting power in them. If it was just about funding them, he wouldn't have to hold majority voting rights, and could just drop funding if they start doing something he disagrees with. In general, this is a single person buying up power over major parts of the FLOSS scene, and that's not a behaviour that we should condone, or support.
- pyre 9y agoYou're right about this: > that's not a behaviour that we should condone, or support but you're extrapolating from limited data to form this opinion: > That's all I need to know to see that this is not him just funding projects, but actually about getting power in them.