4 ms·

Can anyone explain what’s going on to those who aren’t aware of the situation? Also, the tweets seem to have been deleted, did anyone archive them?

yegortimoshenko 8y ago
I couldn't find archived links, but there are a few mentions: https://www.google.com/search?q="Copperhead+as+a+company+doesn't+share+the+goals+and+vision+of+this+project+and" https://www.google.com/search?q="Copperhead+as+a+company+doe...
ihuman 8y ago
I think those are the archives of the tweets. Also, I think @CopperheadOS changed their twitter ID to @DanielMicay. If you go to Google's cache of @CopperheadOS [1] and click on the date next to one of the tweets (example [2]), it redirects to the live version of the tweet under @DanielMicay. [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bgK8U669OHoJ:https://twitter.com/copperheados%3Flang%3Den+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bgK8U6... [2] May 22 https://twitter.com/CopperheadOS/status/998953746833944576 https://twitter.com/CopperheadOS/status/998953746833944576 > This account covers the technical side of CopperheadOS. >Please send all questions about sales to sales@copperhead.co. >The customer support system should be used for official support or the subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/CopperheadOS/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CopperheadOS/ ) for community support. > Can't help with either here."
yegortimoshenko 8y ago
CEO of the company, James Donaldson, wants to boot off Daniel Micay, CTO of Copperhead and the main developer behind CopperheadOS project. Both have 50% shareholder stake. As of now, Daniel Micay can't use Copperhead branding anymore, and is locked out of his own work (because copyright has been assigned to the company), and can only use CopperheadOS under CC-BY-NC-SA.
- _jayy 8y ago
  [deleted]
  - yegortimoshenko 8y ago
    I'm basing my gross over-simplification off this letter: https://gitlab.com/yegortimoshenko/copperhead-takeover/blob/master/Copperhead%20Letter%2004-06-18.pdf https://gitlab.com/yegortimoshenko/copperhead-takeover/blob/... It says quite clearly that you a) believe copyright belongs to the company, b) want him to give all access to infrastructure, c) revoke his access to Copperhead branding. What exactly have I got wrong or over-simplified?
    - geofft 8y ago
      I don't think "wants to boot" is an accurate conclusion from a, b, and c; someone working in a company (as opposed to someone working on a personal project alone) should assign copyright to the company and share infrastructure / account access with other people in the company. (Also I think it's super weird for you to use HN as a forum to push this dispute.)
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - handbanana 8y ago
      It's weird to me. Because on the one hand I can see your point of view, on the other hand - if the CTO of a company is withholding access to things from the CEO that's strange. Is that a recent development, or is that just to prevent the CEO taking control? I don't know. It seems possible one of them is a bad egg. Or perhaps they have just had a very bad falling out. It does appear to be the case that because one guy is a/the coder, everyone is being more sympathetic to him. I haven't chosen a side yet - and I'm still reading through everything. Hopefully this gets resolved and after it the bad egg (if one exists) leaves the company.
    - AdamM12 8y ago
      This is kinda how building business around tech & IP works. The IP (copyright, patents, etc.) is assigned to the company so when they seek investment the investors know what they are getting. That or the IP is licensed which doesn't appear to be the case. The guy assigning the IP still owns it given he is a 50% shareholder. IMO this bike shredding of an issue is more detrimental to the going concern of the project than anything. The guy wrote the majority of the code it would be moronic for him to get booted which is why I highly doubt the other dude is trying to get rid of him and this is a misunderstanding of how this process works.

yegortimoshenko 8y ago

I couldn't find archived links, but there are a few mentions: https://www.google.com/search?q="Copperhead+as+a+company+doesn't+share+the+goals+and+vision+of+this+project+and" https://www.google.com/search?q="Copperhead+as+a+company+doe...

ihuman 8y ago

I think those are the archives of the tweets. Also, I think @CopperheadOS changed their twitter ID to @DanielMicay. If you go to Google's cache of @CopperheadOS [1] and click on the date next to one of the tweets (example [2]), it redirects to the live version of the tweet under @DanielMicay. [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bgK8U669OHoJ:https://twitter.com/copperheados%3Flang%3Den+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bgK8U6... [2] May 22 https://twitter.com/CopperheadOS/status/998953746833944576 https://twitter.com/CopperheadOS/status/998953746833944576 > This account covers the technical side of CopperheadOS. >Please send all questions about sales to sales@copperhead.co. >The customer support system should be used for official support or the subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/CopperheadOS/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CopperheadOS/ ) for community support. > Can't help with either here."

yegortimoshenko 8y ago

CEO of the company, James Donaldson, wants to boot off Daniel Micay, CTO of Copperhead and the main developer behind CopperheadOS project. Both have 50% shareholder stake. As of now, Daniel Micay can't use Copperhead branding anymore, and is locked out of his own work (because copyright has been assigned to the company), and can only use CopperheadOS under CC-BY-NC-SA.

_jayy 8y ago
[deleted]
- yegortimoshenko 8y ago
  I'm basing my gross over-simplification off this letter: https://gitlab.com/yegortimoshenko/copperhead-takeover/blob/master/Copperhead%20Letter%2004-06-18.pdf https://gitlab.com/yegortimoshenko/copperhead-takeover/blob/... It says quite clearly that you a) believe copyright belongs to the company, b) want him to give all access to infrastructure, c) revoke his access to Copperhead branding. What exactly have I got wrong or over-simplified?
  - geofft 8y ago
    I don't think "wants to boot" is an accurate conclusion from a, b, and c; someone working in a company (as opposed to someone working on a personal project alone) should assign copyright to the company and share infrastructure / account access with other people in the company. (Also I think it's super weird for you to use HN as a forum to push this dispute.)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - handbanana 8y ago
    It's weird to me. Because on the one hand I can see your point of view, on the other hand - if the CTO of a company is withholding access to things from the CEO that's strange. Is that a recent development, or is that just to prevent the CEO taking control? I don't know. It seems possible one of them is a bad egg. Or perhaps they have just had a very bad falling out. It does appear to be the case that because one guy is a/the coder, everyone is being more sympathetic to him. I haven't chosen a side yet - and I'm still reading through everything. Hopefully this gets resolved and after it the bad egg (if one exists) leaves the company.
  - AdamM12 8y ago
    This is kinda how building business around tech & IP works. The IP (copyright, patents, etc.) is assigned to the company so when they seek investment the investors know what they are getting. That or the IP is licensed which doesn't appear to be the case. The guy assigning the IP still owns it given he is a 50% shareholder. IMO this bike shredding of an issue is more detrimental to the going concern of the project than anything. The guy wrote the majority of the code it would be moronic for him to get booted which is why I highly doubt the other dude is trying to get rid of him and this is a misunderstanding of how this process works.