31 ms·

That information is confidential in nature. That said tomaw has seen it and has handed freenode back over if that helps to understand what it’s content may have

That information is confidential in nature. That said tomaw has seen it and has handed freenode back over if that helps to understand what it’s content may have. I really apologize for the inconvenience.

greyface- 5y ago
What are the terms of the confidentiality agreement? Who would need to sign off on terminating the confidentiality agreement, and would you consider doing so in order to help the public understand what's going on?
- rasengan 5y ago
  About the majority of the questions I will get back to you. In terms of the latter - I wish I could have simply posted it — so absolutely, yes.
  - greyface- 5y ago
    Thanks. I'm glad to hear that -- I think the lack of transparency around the sale is making it hard for a lot of people (myself included) to make sense of this whole situation.
duckfang 5y ago
Oof. Confidentiality, NDA's, and other business tools like it are at complete odds with open source, free software, transparency, and honesty. It's comments like this that cement the idea of getting off of Freenode to Libera.chat is the best thing we could do.
- Qworg 5y ago
  It is a double edged sword - he's also bound (and may not have been the initiator).
- logical_person 5y ago
  To say business tools and confidentiality are at odds with open source is comical at best. Some of us work on FOSS as a career. We still have to sign NDAs with customers, we still upstream patches to core components. Throwing your toys out of the ring because business is business is why open source has a funding problem.
  - c-cube 5y ago
    Why the heck would a IRC network, run by volunteer, with infra graciously provided by sponsors, have to sign NDAs with anyone? Everything about Freenode should have been transparent.
  - duckfang 5y ago
    > To say business tools and confidentiality are at odds with open source is comical at best. Some of us work on FOSS as a career. We still have to sign NDAs with customers, we still upstream patches to core components. It makes sense that credentials to services are confidential. But aside that, the whole point behind a bulk of free software and open source is that everything's done out in the open. You get to watch the meat grinder - and you can even operate it as well! The head butcher may have exacting quality controls, but again - its viewable. And yes, many of us have NDA's. I have a few myself, only on the specific implementations of systems I build and/or maintain, and internal business things. I reviewed it with an attorney, and believed their limited scope was acceptable and reasonable. > Throwing your toys out of the ring because business is business is why open source has a funding problem. There's a few assumptions there. 1. I helped *migrate* people away from (un)Freenode to Libera.chat . I didn't throw them away - i helped move people over for a mostly seamless experience. 2. That open source/free software has a funding problem... That's just a troll statement - you're assuming business needs are the same as FOSS. They're not. And unlike closed source proprietary, once FOSS code has been written, everyone can share. But you knew that; and that's why I call it a troll statement. It's disingenuous at its core.
  - uhfraid 5y ago
    The way you choose to handle business doesn’t invalidate what he said, and you shouldn’t take that as a dig.
blibble 5y ago
so you're willing to disclose it? I'm sure the other side would also be open to it if both sides are happy there should be no problem whatsoever this would completely settle the debate
- Macha 5y ago
  The other side might be christel, not the libera.chat ops.
  - ilaksh 5y ago
    I think it's just Christel needed money and this guy took advantage and no one or almost no one with admin/operational duties was informed. So I think the legality of this transaction was dubious. But, I don't think it matters that much anymore. People just need to get the word out that the network has a new name.
    - blibble 5y ago
      so... she told Andrew that he now is the owner of freenode, whilst simultaneously telling the staff that he wasn't? whilst Andrew paid her (seemingly in exchange for ownership) not a bad deal for her... if that's a correct assessment then it certainly looks like that could be considered to be fraud
      - nabakin 5y ago
        Yeah I've come to the same conclusion but idk why the staff didn't say this in the first place. They only said that they didn't know he was the owner.

greyface- 5y ago

What are the terms of the confidentiality agreement? Who would need to sign off on terminating the confidentiality agreement, and would you consider doing so in order to help the public understand what's going on?

rasengan 5y ago
About the majority of the questions I will get back to you. In terms of the latter - I wish I could have simply posted it — so absolutely, yes.
- greyface- 5y ago
  Thanks. I'm glad to hear that -- I think the lack of transparency around the sale is making it hard for a lot of people (myself included) to make sense of this whole situation.

duckfang 5y ago

Oof. Confidentiality, NDA's, and other business tools like it are at complete odds with open source, free software, transparency, and honesty. It's comments like this that cement the idea of getting off of Freenode to Libera.chat is the best thing we could do.

Qworg 5y ago
It is a double edged sword - he's also bound (and may not have been the initiator).
logical_person 5y ago
To say business tools and confidentiality are at odds with open source is comical at best. Some of us work on FOSS as a career. We still have to sign NDAs with customers, we still upstream patches to core components. Throwing your toys out of the ring because business is business is why open source has a funding problem.
- c-cube 5y ago
  Why the heck would a IRC network, run by volunteer, with infra graciously provided by sponsors, have to sign NDAs with anyone? Everything about Freenode should have been transparent.
- duckfang 5y ago
  > To say business tools and confidentiality are at odds with open source is comical at best. Some of us work on FOSS as a career. We still have to sign NDAs with customers, we still upstream patches to core components. It makes sense that credentials to services are confidential. But aside that, the whole point behind a bulk of free software and open source is that everything's done out in the open. You get to watch the meat grinder - and you can even operate it as well! The head butcher may have exacting quality controls, but again - its viewable. And yes, many of us have NDA's. I have a few myself, only on the specific implementations of systems I build and/or maintain, and internal business things. I reviewed it with an attorney, and believed their limited scope was acceptable and reasonable. > Throwing your toys out of the ring because business is business is why open source has a funding problem. There's a few assumptions there. 1. I helped *migrate* people away from (un)Freenode to Libera.chat . I didn't throw them away - i helped move people over for a mostly seamless experience. 2. That open source/free software has a funding problem... That's just a troll statement - you're assuming business needs are the same as FOSS. They're not. And unlike closed source proprietary, once FOSS code has been written, everyone can share. But you knew that; and that's why I call it a troll statement. It's disingenuous at its core.
- uhfraid 5y ago
  The way you choose to handle business doesn’t invalidate what he said, and you shouldn’t take that as a dig.

blibble 5y ago

so you're willing to disclose it? I'm sure the other side would also be open to it if both sides are happy there should be no problem whatsoever this would completely settle the debate

Macha 5y ago
The other side might be christel, not the libera.chat ops.
- ilaksh 5y ago
  I think it's just Christel needed money and this guy took advantage and no one or almost no one with admin/operational duties was informed. So I think the legality of this transaction was dubious. But, I don't think it matters that much anymore. People just need to get the word out that the network has a new name.
  - blibble 5y ago
    so... she told Andrew that he now is the owner of freenode, whilst simultaneously telling the staff that he wasn't? whilst Andrew paid her (seemingly in exchange for ownership) not a bad deal for her... if that's a correct assessment then it certainly looks like that could be considered to be fraud
    - nabakin 5y ago
      Yeah I've come to the same conclusion but idk why the staff didn't say this in the first place. They only said that they didn't know he was the owner.