Having only skimmed the article, this reads like a profound take on a simple disagreement of semantics. I don't really see much insight here - all of this is pr

Having only skimmed the article, this reads like a profound take on a simple disagreement of semantics. I don't really see much insight here - all of this is pretty much expected. If you're a "startup" within another company, you're still within another company. Of course there's a leash, what did you expect? If you're simply receiving money from the company, then they're an investor, nothing more. This is like saying "There's no such thing as a free meal" when of course the argument is more about the semantics of the word "free", not about the concept of a no-cost meal. To the person in a soup kitchen, the meal is certainly free - as in, no money is exchanged. There are associated costs, of course - but the patron need not pay those.