5 ms·

Yes. Freenode was the largest public IRC relay network, something like 30 servers, 80k+ users, 40k+ channels, originally directed to open source software but e.

Yes. Freenode was the largest public IRC relay network, something like 30 servers, 80k+ users, 40k+ channels, originally directed to open source software but e.g. I would mostly hang out on ##math and ##physics and help students out with problems. This is not a "back in the day" situation, like, it continues to be extremely popular as far as non-Web non-Email internet usage goes. As for the situation, if I understand correctly: - Andrew Lee unexpectedly transferred control of the domain names without telling the community of maintainers who actually volunteer, unpaid, to keep the relay servers running. - The maintainers perceived the company that now held the domain names as "sketchy." Andrew is the director of the company but it looked like its corporate filing status was out-of-date or something. - In a damage control chat, Lee explained that the domain names were transferred because someone at the sketchy company had a plan to "decentralize ownership of the domain name" (which sounds kind of ridiculous up-front?). Lee also made references to proposals he'd never proposed to those folks which documented the transfer, and other such things... there was apparently also some reference to Freenode costing "millions of dollars" which the maintainers did not appreciate -- responses with the emotional tone of "you mean our donated compute and time that we don't get paid for is costing you millions? how?? and if not, how dare you complain that the main burden is on you rather than on us?" - And part of the problem is that Lee isn't, you know, a peer of these volunteers running his own Freenode server and having conversations with them on a daily basis, so he came across as a domineering outsider. For these reasons it looks like the volunteers have basically decided to flee the one domain name and start up a separate one, in the hopes that the users get the message and head on over to the new domain.

pmlnr 5y ago
I love how everyone skips the part that freenode's democratically elected former leader was the one who simply sold something they shouldn't have been able to - blame should first be directed at them.
- lapinot 5y ago
  Possession of stolen good is equally punishable as theft..
  - nomadiccoder 5y ago
    *Knowingly
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    It's not so much a question of possession so much as ... if the good was stolen, you simply have no contract, because the seller didn't own it. It's not your good to begin with. You may not have stolen it, but you still need to return it.
    - that_guy_iain 5y ago
      They weren't stolen though. They gave someone leadership power and that person entered into contracts on behalf of the organisation. Multiple blogs mention there is no legal recourse so they have asked lawyers and it's all legit.
      - FeepingCreature 5y ago
        An organization doesn't get ownership over a volunteer run project by sharing a name. It might just be that there's no affordable legal recourse.
        that_guy_iain 5y ago
        They get ownership of the domains and name. They said specifically no legal recourse with a likelihood to win.
    - bipson 5y ago
      Interestingly enough, there are drastic differences written in law regarding this. In some countries, you are in fact allowed to keep purchased stolen goods, if they were bought in good faith. While in other countries, you as the buyer can be in serious trouble, even if you couldn't know if it was stolen and at least need to prove that you were misled and did everything you could to prove ownership. I guess you were arguing morally, just pointing out this isn't legally true everywhere.
ryanlol 5y ago
>you mean our donated compute and time that we don't get paid for is costing you millions? how?? Sounds like you forgot about the very expensive conference freenode staff organized with rasengans money
- XQtN2s7Mo 5y ago
  rasengan was very adamant that the conference takes place. It was a contractual obligation.
nullc 5y ago
You can see Lee lying about their acquisition of freenode on HN a couple years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21614362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21614362 > Freenode is a non profit organization that benefits from support from Private Internet. It is not owned by Private Internet. We are serious fans of IRC and the open source community, so it makes sense for us to divert profits to orgs like freenode among others. > To be clear, we also donate to other orgs: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/pages/companies-we-spo https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/pages/companies-we-spo... Our new merged company will continue to do the same as we are in fact the same company going forward - just much better resourced. They're all a bunch of shady scammers. I don't understand why people trust the freenode staff either, since they evaded or demured when challenged about selling freenode to scammers years ago.
- XQtN2s7Mo 5y ago
  Freenode staffers were lied to by the person who made the sale. Read their resignation letters, some are very detailed.
- 88 5y ago
  Do you have evidence to support the implication (for Lee to be lying, as you claim) that Freenode is owned by Private Internet Access?
  - exo762 5y ago
    Lee owning the domain does not make him an owner of freenode. It's a community project.
  - gwillen 5y ago
    Well, from the current front page of freenode.net: https://web.archive.org/web/20210520103526/https://freenode.net/news/freenode-is-foss https://web.archive.org/web/20210520103526/https://freenode.... "The rumors of a 'hostile takeover' are simply untrue - I've been the guardian and owner of freenode since 2017, when Christel, the former owner approached me and asked if I was interested in purchasing it, as we had in previous years discussed this."
Tyr42 5y ago
Also he vetod the appointment of a mod mod or something, and deleted all trace of that blog post. Since the volunteers previous could do this, and were promised that nothing was going to be changed it was pretty upsetting. Then one other person comes in saying Andrew said he could be a mod now, please grant permissions.

pmlnr 5y ago

I love how everyone skips the part that freenode's democratically elected former leader was the one who simply sold something they shouldn't have been able to - blame should first be directed at them.

lapinot 5y ago
Possession of stolen good is equally punishable as theft..
- nomadiccoder 5y ago
  *Knowingly
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  It's not so much a question of possession so much as ... if the good was stolen, you simply have no contract, because the seller didn't own it. It's not your good to begin with. You may not have stolen it, but you still need to return it.
  - that_guy_iain 5y ago
    They weren't stolen though. They gave someone leadership power and that person entered into contracts on behalf of the organisation. Multiple blogs mention there is no legal recourse so they have asked lawyers and it's all legit.
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      An organization doesn't get ownership over a volunteer run project by sharing a name. It might just be that there's no affordable legal recourse.
      - that_guy_iain 5y ago
        They get ownership of the domains and name. They said specifically no legal recourse with a likelihood to win.
  - bipson 5y ago
    Interestingly enough, there are drastic differences written in law regarding this. In some countries, you are in fact allowed to keep purchased stolen goods, if they were bought in good faith. While in other countries, you as the buyer can be in serious trouble, even if you couldn't know if it was stolen and at least need to prove that you were misled and did everything you could to prove ownership. I guess you were arguing morally, just pointing out this isn't legally true everywhere.

ryanlol 5y ago

>you mean our donated compute and time that we don't get paid for is costing you millions? how?? Sounds like you forgot about the very expensive conference freenode staff organized with rasengans money

XQtN2s7Mo 5y ago
rasengan was very adamant that the conference takes place. It was a contractual obligation.

nullc 5y ago

You can see Lee lying about their acquisition of freenode on HN a couple years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21614362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21614362 > Freenode is a non profit organization that benefits from support from Private Internet. It is not owned by Private Internet. We are serious fans of IRC and the open source community, so it makes sense for us to divert profits to orgs like freenode among others. > To be clear, we also donate to other orgs: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/pages/companies-we-spo https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/pages/companies-we-spo... Our new merged company will continue to do the same as we are in fact the same company going forward - just much better resourced. They're all a bunch of shady scammers. I don't understand why people trust the freenode staff either, since they evaded or demured when challenged about selling freenode to scammers years ago.

XQtN2s7Mo 5y ago
Freenode staffers were lied to by the person who made the sale. Read their resignation letters, some are very detailed.
88 5y ago
Do you have evidence to support the implication (for Lee to be lying, as you claim) that Freenode is owned by Private Internet Access?
- exo762 5y ago
  Lee owning the domain does not make him an owner of freenode. It's a community project.
- gwillen 5y ago
  Well, from the current front page of freenode.net: https://web.archive.org/web/20210520103526/https://freenode.net/news/freenode-is-foss https://web.archive.org/web/20210520103526/https://freenode.... "The rumors of a 'hostile takeover' are simply untrue - I've been the guardian and owner of freenode since 2017, when Christel, the former owner approached me and asked if I was interested in purchasing it, as we had in previous years discussed this."

Tyr42 5y ago

Also he vetod the appointment of a mod mod or something, and deleted all trace of that blog post. Since the volunteers previous could do this, and were promised that nothing was going to be changed it was pretty upsetting. Then one other person comes in saying Andrew said he could be a mod now, please grant permissions.