2 ms·
The culpability of Dean Oemcke in this particular incident should not be understated. Hindsight is hindsight, of course, but the fact that the new owner of the
by escape_goat 6y ago
The culpability of Dean Oemcke in this particular incident should not be understated. Hindsight is hindsight, of course, but the fact that the new owner of the platform distribution rights of this open-source project was (and apparently remains) anonymous seems like it ought to have been a huge red flag. The fact that these rights were paid for made it obvious that monetization was pending. The lack of transparency made it obvious that the form of that monetization would not be acceptable to the contributing community.
There might be a way of contesting the rights to the project name but that would require legal activism and external funding. Basically the original project is dead insofar as the contributors are not comfortable with supporting a parasitic and probably malicious actor. I guess a fork is inevitable. Meanwhile the parasite will harvest the value of the 'brand', distribution rights, and existing codebase until it is drained by obsolescence.
A really disgusting way to treat a community by both parties. One can only hope that Mr. Oemcke desperately needed the money for some vital purpose.