3 ms·
> Someone has to own the domain, right? Why not an association then? Why must it always be someONE who owns something? Communal property is the way forwards, n
by mlatu 5y ago
> Someone has to own the domain, right?
Why not an association then?
Why must it always be someONE who owns something?
Communal property is the way forwards, not setting up fences.
- jlokier 5y agoIt is already owned by an association, a non-profit called Freenode Limited.
- jlokier 5y agoNice downvote for looking up a simple legal fact, to address the misleading impression from the GP that an individual person holds the domain. Perhaps this will be downvoted as well because the childishness is strong on this issue, but for the benefit of anyone who cares, the parent comment is at least technically correct (the best kind of correct). The domain at the centre of this controversy is owned by an incorporated non-profit association registered as a company limited by guarantee, not by a "someone".