6 ms·

Freenode is pointing irc.libera.net to chat.freenode.net

64 points by outloudvi 5y ago

justshowpost 5y ago
– Daddy, why IRC proto specs are so inconsistent? – Hush! We are busy in ircops war!
uncomputation 5y ago
Summary: Essentially this is an attempt of freenode.net to redirect people who type in libera.net instead of libera.chat. Libera.chat is a fork of freenode.net that formed in response to a controversial change in leadership in May 2021.
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  Your summary leaves out that no proof is offered that Freenode owns it.
  - techrat 5y ago
    freenode.net and libera.net use the same CF nameservers. Freenode.net: Name Server: DINA.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM Name Server: NOAH.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM Libera.net: Name Server: NOAH.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM Name Server: DINA.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM https://domains.google.com/registrar/search/whois/libera.net https://domains.google.com/registrar/search/whois/libera.net https://domains.google.com/registrar/search/whois/freenode.net https://domains.google.com/registrar/search/whois/freenode.n... SANs on the cert served from chat.freenode.net: (you can confirm yourself by typing: openssl s_client -connect chat.freenode.net:6697 | openssl x509 -noout -text | grep DNS: And seeing the output.) > DNS:avalanche.freenode.net, DNS:chat.au.freenode.com, DNS:chat.au.freenode.net, DNS:chat.au.freenode.org, DNS:chat.eu.freenode.com, DNS:chat.eu.freenode.net, DNS:chat.eu.freenode.org, DNS:chat.freenode.com, DNS:chat.freenode.net, DNS:chat.freenode.org, DNS:chat.ipv4.freenode.com, DNS:chat.ipv4.freenode.net, DNS:chat.ipv4.freenode.org, DNS:chat.ipv6.freenode.com, DNS:chat.ipv6.freenode.net, DNS:chat.ipv6.freenode.org, DNS:chat.irc.com, DNS:chat.us.freenode.com, DNS:chat.us.freenode.net, DNS:chat.us.freenode.org, DNS:ipv6.chat.freenode.net, DNS:ipv6.irc.freenode.net, DNS:irc.au.freenode.com, DNS:irc.au.freenode.net, DNS:irc.au.freenode.org, DNS:irc.eu.freenode.com, DNS:irc.eu.freenode.net, DNS:irc.eu.freenode.org, DNS:irc.freenode.com, DNS:irc.freenode.net, DNS:irc.freenode.org, DNS:irc.ipv4.freenode.com, DNS:irc.ipv4.freenode.net, DNS:irc.ipv4.freenode.org, DNS:irc.ipv6.freenode.com, DNS:irc.ipv6.freenode.net, DNS:irc.ipv6.freenode.org, DNS:irc.irc.com, DNS:irc.libera.net, DNS:irc.us.freenode.com, DNS:irc.us.freenode.net, DNS:irc.us.freenode.org Looking at the cert from irc.libera.net directly shows you the same. openssl s_client -connect irc.libera.net:6697 </dev/null | openssl x509 -noout -ext subjectAltName > X509v3 Subject Alternative Name: > DNS:chat.au.freenode.com, DNS:chat.au.freenode.net, DNS:chat.au.freenode.org, DNS:chat.eu.freenode.com, DNS:chat.eu.freenode.net, DNS:chat.eu.freenode.org, DNS:chat.freenode.com, DNS:chat.freenode.net, DNS:chat.freenode.org, DNS:chat.ipv4.freenode.com, DNS:chat.ipv4.freenode.net, DNS:chat.ipv4.freenode.org, DNS:chat.ipv6.freenode.com, DNS:chat.ipv6.freenode.net, DNS:chat.ipv6.freenode.org, DNS:chat.irc.com, DNS:chat.us.freenode.com, DNS:chat.us.freenode.net, DNS:chat.us.freenode.org, DNS:ipv6.chat.freenode.net, DNS:ipv6.irc.freenode.net, DNS:irc.au.freenode.com, DNS:irc.au.freenode.net, DNS:irc.au.freenode.org, DNS:irc.eu.freenode.com, DNS:irc.eu.freenode.net, DNS:irc.eu.freenode.org, DNS:irc.freenode.com, DNS:irc.freenode.net, DNS:irc.freenode.org, DNS:irc.ipv4.freenode.com, DNS:irc.ipv4.freenode.net, DNS:irc.ipv4.freenode.org, DNS:irc.ipv6.freenode.com, DNS:irc.ipv6.freenode.net, DNS:irc.ipv6.freenode.org, DNS:irc.irc.com, DNS:irc.libera.net, DNS:irc.us.freenode.com, DNS:irc.us.freenode.net, DNS:irc.us.freenode.org, DNS:karma.freenode.net And if that's not enough... Lee's other domains, irc.com, imperialfamily.com, lfa.com... are on the same registrar as libera.net: 101domain.net Let's hear your evidence in support of the claim that libera.net ISN'T likely to be owned by Andrew Lee.
    - readflaggedcomm 5y ago
      >Let's hear your evidence in support of the claim that libera.net ISN'T likely to be owned by Andrew Lee. Where is this coming from?
      - aaomidi 5y ago
        By you not doing basic research into your claim.
        readflaggedcomm 5y ago
        I don't know what your game is, but I made no claim.
        nedbat 5y ago
        Do you accept the proof that freenode owns the registration?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - outloudvi 5y ago
    Actually we didn't expect the Cloudflare NS address & user matching since it has never been officially promised. They are on the same certificate from Let's Encrypt, which is a much more solid evidence: https://crt.sh/?id=4844214523 https://crt.sh/?id=4844214523 (Oh, techrat also mentioned that, great!)
junon 5y ago
This comes at a surprise to... nobody. The entire libera staff have been warning about this dude since the first resignation, probably even before. He's shady as hell.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  Let's see if he comes here trying to defend this as he did a couple of months ago.
counternotions 5y ago
How would a lawsuit against him work in a case like this?
- bawolff 5y ago
  UDNRP seems to apply quite readily to this situation.
  - infogulch 5y ago
    > A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed: The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and The domain name has been registered and the domain name is being used in "bad faith". Libera could probably get the domain transferred into their control. Especially if they set up their trademarks right as another comment mentioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Resolution_Policy#Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Re...
    - sneak 5y ago
      Does the libera IRC net actually engage in any trade for which they might have trademarks?
      - bawolff 5y ago
        Seems to fit class 38 quite well. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/trademark-class-38-telecommunications-services.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/trademark-class-38-t... I think the real question is if they bothered to register it.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - nerdbaggy 5y ago
antpls 5y ago
In order to understand the ecosystem, I ask myself this question : why did 4chan personally harass Audacity leader, but did nothing about the behavior of freechat leader?
- a1baomarov 5y ago
  Because new freenode is 4chan. Same atmosphere you know.
javajosh 5y ago
My reaction to this is "Oh, I guess the freenode guy really is the bad guy in this drama after all." I'd chalked up all the drama as ego + misunderstanding, but this makes it easier to take sides! So, thanks freenode guy for simplifying my life a little bit!
dmitryminkovsky 5y ago
I've been following this for a few months now and I still, after all the time, cannot discern a financial motive. Is all of this really just schoolyard ego stuff? There was no substantial monetary value in Freenode, right? And if there was, there certainly isn't now? I mean, it looks like the group that took it over just set it on fire?
- techrat 5y ago
  > Is all of this really just schoolyard ego stuff? Yup. Plus copious amounts of cocaine.* Someone once pointed out that IRC is Andrew Lee's 'security blanket' and it's been impossible for me to see it any other way since. He feels entitled to it, in his head he feels whatever he ends up doing is still for the best despite all evidence to the contrary. https://netsplit.de/networks/top10.php https://netsplit.de/networks/top10.php Stats paint an even sadder picture. That near straight drop was when he split Freenode into 'classic' and 'new' before shutting down 'classic.' (It was theorized he did this in anticipation of Libera overtaking Freenode in global users so he decided to nuke it all.) So, in his short tenure, he went from having the largest active irc network to... probably having less users than Undernet in about 2 weeks' time. * And no, the cocaine thing is not hyperbole. Dude has a serious drug problem. There's even lawsuits over it. https://corrupt.tech/1708590130-ocr-compressed.pdf https://corrupt.tech/1708590130-ocr-compressed.pdf Some highlights: > 102. Lee's increasingly erratic behavior made LTM a miserable place to work. In addition to the long hours and high-stress environment at LTM, Lee's conduct made employees uncomfortable and fearful for both their own wellbeing and the continued viability of the company. > 103. Lee would frequently use cocaine in front of LTM's clients, colleagues, certain employees, and trusted advisors. Plaintiffs Ken, Jane, Michael, John, and James all personally observed Lee's pervasive drug use. > 104. Lee would regularly leave cocaine and marijuana residue in the office. Ken, who was typically the first to arrive in the office every morning, would find Lee's leftover food, drugs, and alcohol bottles on work stations, and would clean everything up before other LTM personnel arrived. > 105. Lee made a habit of barging into Ken's living quarters in the middle of the night to play loud music, entertain random women, and use drugs. > 106. In or around February 2015, Lee wanted to hire an assistant. After interviewing a particular female candidate, Lee-a married man-insisted on hiring her because he wanted to have sex with her. Ken and Park talked Lee out of it, advising Lee that his requested conduct was wrong and could cost L TM in a potential lawsuit. Lee retorted that he did not care about any sexual harassment suit or potential liability for LTM because. he would pay any settlement out of his own pocket. > 107. Lee also stated that he wanted to start a "modeling agency" under the L TM umbrella called "Breakout Agency." Lee rented a house in the Hollywood Hills for the "models" to live in. Before renting the house and starting the agency, Lee circulated a draft memo to the male LTM executives advising them to make sure to "wear a condom" when having sex with the "models." The draft memorandum was outrageous and, like the incident above, could form the basis of a potential sexual harassment suit. Again, Ken and Park were forced to talk with Lee and insist that he refrain from sending such communication. > 108. Lee further indicated to LTM personnel that he planned to move the company's workspace to the house in Hollywood Hills, where they would work alongside the models. All LTM personnel recognized that moving the company would create an unstable and unprofessional work environment; and Jane in particular, as one of LTM's few female employees, was not comfortable with the rampant sexism that this move presaged. > 109. Making matters worse, Lee also had an ongoing relationship with a mistress that he brought to company functions and the LTM offices, despite people knowing that he was married. Lee met his mistress through a company offering female companionship for money. Lee abandoned his wife and newborn child to spend time with this woman, and their relationship was toxic. His mistress was physically and verbally abusive towards Lee, erratic and unpredictable, and caused Lee to act over-emotionally. > 110. The two fought on a daily basis. And this happened in front of LTM employees, including Plaintiffs. For example, a few days after the February 2015 Meeting, Lee and his mistress had a violent altercation at a club in front of Park, Ken, James, and other L TM personnel. His mistress became infuriated and violent when Lee did not pay attention to her to attend to a conference call concerning L TM business. She punched Lee in the face, causing Lee to lose a tooth.
neilv 5y ago
An ICANN trademark dispute might seize the domain registration, but first... Libera's principals should consult an attorney. Maybe approach the EFF, or ask a law school free legal clinic. If the attorneys say they can't help within budget, then a Libera principal can contact their state AG's office. If the AG's office can't help directly, they might know which business regulatory authority to ask. (I should note: The `whois` info doesn't indicate whether this is the doing of Freenode officials, or of some other party. So keep the pitchforks in storage, and don't let facts get clouded.)
- simcop2387 5y ago
  Libera is not a US entity, so the state ag advice likely doesn't apply
  - neilv 5y ago
    Thanks, my bad. Or they could contact an analogous authority where they or the (suspected) Freenode is based.
aritmo 5y ago
Libera.net was registered in 2000. This whole issue can be easily resolved if anyone has a domaintools account and check the history of the libera.net domain. https://whois.domaintools.com/libera.net https://whois.domaintools.com/libera.net
- techrat 5y ago
  Registration/Creation date does not change when a domain is resold or renewed by a different registrar. Here's my domain: Created on 1999-01-22 Expires on 2022-01-22 Updated on 2021-02-07 I bough it from a domain auction site in 2018.
  - Darmody 5y ago
    So you're responsible for tricking me into thinking I was on libera but I was on freenode instead?
    - techrat 5y ago
      You're not a very smart one. I don't own libera.net. Andrew Lee does.
      - Darmody 5y ago
        Well, you said that you bought it a couple years ago.
        techrat 5y ago
        Like I said, you're not very bright. > > Libera.net was registered in 2000. More specifically: Libera.net: 7,868 days old Created on 2000-01-04 Pay attention to that Created on date. What I said: > Registration/Creation date does not change when a domain is resold or renewed by a different registrar. > Here's my domain: Created on 1999-01-22 I never said my domain was Libera.net. By example, I was demonstrating that with my domain, the created on date does not reflect when I bought it. Using simple logic would have made it known to you that my domain being used as an example PREDATES THE EXISTENCE OF LIBERA.NET. Fuck, pay attention to the chain of comments next time.

64 points by outloudvi 5y ago

– Daddy, why IRC proto specs are so inconsistent? – Hush! We are busy in ircops war!

Summary: Essentially this is an attempt of freenode.net to redirect people who type in libera.net instead of libera.chat. Libera.chat is a fork of freenode.net that formed in response to a controversial change in leadership in May 2021.

readflaggedcomm 5y ago
Your summary leaves out that no proof is offered that Freenode owns it.
- techrat 5y ago
  freenode.net and libera.net use the same CF nameservers. Freenode.net: Name Server: DINA.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM Name Server: NOAH.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM Libera.net: Name Server: NOAH.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM Name Server: DINA.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM https://domains.google.com/registrar/search/whois/libera.net https://domains.google.com/registrar/search/whois/libera.net https://domains.google.com/registrar/search/whois/freenode.net https://domains.google.com/registrar/search/whois/freenode.n... SANs on the cert served from chat.freenode.net: (you can confirm yourself by typing: openssl s_client -connect chat.freenode.net:6697 | openssl x509 -noout -text | grep DNS: And seeing the output.) > DNS:avalanche.freenode.net, DNS:chat.au.freenode.com, DNS:chat.au.freenode.net, DNS:chat.au.freenode.org, DNS:chat.eu.freenode.com, DNS:chat.eu.freenode.net, DNS:chat.eu.freenode.org, DNS:chat.freenode.com, DNS:chat.freenode.net, DNS:chat.freenode.org, DNS:chat.ipv4.freenode.com, DNS:chat.ipv4.freenode.net, DNS:chat.ipv4.freenode.org, DNS:chat.ipv6.freenode.com, DNS:chat.ipv6.freenode.net, DNS:chat.ipv6.freenode.org, DNS:chat.irc.com, DNS:chat.us.freenode.com, DNS:chat.us.freenode.net, DNS:chat.us.freenode.org, DNS:ipv6.chat.freenode.net, DNS:ipv6.irc.freenode.net, DNS:irc.au.freenode.com, DNS:irc.au.freenode.net, DNS:irc.au.freenode.org, DNS:irc.eu.freenode.com, DNS:irc.eu.freenode.net, DNS:irc.eu.freenode.org, DNS:irc.freenode.com, DNS:irc.freenode.net, DNS:irc.freenode.org, DNS:irc.ipv4.freenode.com, DNS:irc.ipv4.freenode.net, DNS:irc.ipv4.freenode.org, DNS:irc.ipv6.freenode.com, DNS:irc.ipv6.freenode.net, DNS:irc.ipv6.freenode.org, DNS:irc.irc.com, DNS:irc.libera.net, DNS:irc.us.freenode.com, DNS:irc.us.freenode.net, DNS:irc.us.freenode.org Looking at the cert from irc.libera.net directly shows you the same. openssl s_client -connect irc.libera.net:6697 </dev/null | openssl x509 -noout -ext subjectAltName > X509v3 Subject Alternative Name: > DNS:chat.au.freenode.com, DNS:chat.au.freenode.net, DNS:chat.au.freenode.org, DNS:chat.eu.freenode.com, DNS:chat.eu.freenode.net, DNS:chat.eu.freenode.org, DNS:chat.freenode.com, DNS:chat.freenode.net, DNS:chat.freenode.org, DNS:chat.ipv4.freenode.com, DNS:chat.ipv4.freenode.net, DNS:chat.ipv4.freenode.org, DNS:chat.ipv6.freenode.com, DNS:chat.ipv6.freenode.net, DNS:chat.ipv6.freenode.org, DNS:chat.irc.com, DNS:chat.us.freenode.com, DNS:chat.us.freenode.net, DNS:chat.us.freenode.org, DNS:ipv6.chat.freenode.net, DNS:ipv6.irc.freenode.net, DNS:irc.au.freenode.com, DNS:irc.au.freenode.net, DNS:irc.au.freenode.org, DNS:irc.eu.freenode.com, DNS:irc.eu.freenode.net, DNS:irc.eu.freenode.org, DNS:irc.freenode.com, DNS:irc.freenode.net, DNS:irc.freenode.org, DNS:irc.ipv4.freenode.com, DNS:irc.ipv4.freenode.net, DNS:irc.ipv4.freenode.org, DNS:irc.ipv6.freenode.com, DNS:irc.ipv6.freenode.net, DNS:irc.ipv6.freenode.org, DNS:irc.irc.com, DNS:irc.libera.net, DNS:irc.us.freenode.com, DNS:irc.us.freenode.net, DNS:irc.us.freenode.org, DNS:karma.freenode.net And if that's not enough... Lee's other domains, irc.com, imperialfamily.com, lfa.com... are on the same registrar as libera.net: 101domain.net Let's hear your evidence in support of the claim that libera.net ISN'T likely to be owned by Andrew Lee.
  - readflaggedcomm 5y ago
    >Let's hear your evidence in support of the claim that libera.net ISN'T likely to be owned by Andrew Lee. Where is this coming from?
    - aaomidi 5y ago
      By you not doing basic research into your claim.
      - readflaggedcomm 5y ago
        I don't know what your game is, but I made no claim.
        nedbat 5y ago
        Do you accept the proof that freenode owns the registration?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- outloudvi 5y ago
  Actually we didn't expect the Cloudflare NS address & user matching since it has never been officially promised. They are on the same certificate from Let's Encrypt, which is a much more solid evidence: https://crt.sh/?id=4844214523 https://crt.sh/?id=4844214523 (Oh, techrat also mentioned that, great!)

junon 5y ago

This comes at a surprise to... nobody. The entire libera staff have been warning about this dude since the first resignation, probably even before. He's shady as hell.

edgyquant 5y ago
Let's see if he comes here trying to defend this as he did a couple of months ago.

counternotions 5y ago

How would a lawsuit against him work in a case like this?

bawolff 5y ago
UDNRP seems to apply quite readily to this situation.
- infogulch 5y ago
  > A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed: The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and The domain name has been registered and the domain name is being used in "bad faith". Libera could probably get the domain transferred into their control. Especially if they set up their trademarks right as another comment mentioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Resolution_Policy#Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Re...
  - sneak 5y ago
    Does the libera IRC net actually engage in any trade for which they might have trademarks?
    - bawolff 5y ago
      Seems to fit class 38 quite well. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/trademark-class-38-telecommunications-services.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/trademark-class-38-t... I think the real question is if they bothered to register it.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- nerdbaggy 5y ago

antpls 5y ago

In order to understand the ecosystem, I ask myself this question : why did 4chan personally harass Audacity leader, but did nothing about the behavior of freechat leader?

a1baomarov 5y ago
Because new freenode is 4chan. Same atmosphere you know.

javajosh 5y ago

My reaction to this is "Oh, I guess the freenode guy really is the bad guy in this drama after all." I'd chalked up all the drama as ego + misunderstanding, but this makes it easier to take sides! So, thanks freenode guy for simplifying my life a little bit!

dmitryminkovsky 5y ago

I've been following this for a few months now and I still, after all the time, cannot discern a financial motive. Is all of this really just schoolyard ego stuff? There was no substantial monetary value in Freenode, right? And if there was, there certainly isn't now? I mean, it looks like the group that took it over just set it on fire?

techrat 5y ago
> Is all of this really just schoolyard ego stuff? Yup. Plus copious amounts of cocaine.* Someone once pointed out that IRC is Andrew Lee's 'security blanket' and it's been impossible for me to see it any other way since. He feels entitled to it, in his head he feels whatever he ends up doing is still for the best despite all evidence to the contrary. https://netsplit.de/networks/top10.php https://netsplit.de/networks/top10.php Stats paint an even sadder picture. That near straight drop was when he split Freenode into 'classic' and 'new' before shutting down 'classic.' (It was theorized he did this in anticipation of Libera overtaking Freenode in global users so he decided to nuke it all.) So, in his short tenure, he went from having the largest active irc network to... probably having less users than Undernet in about 2 weeks' time. * And no, the cocaine thing is not hyperbole. Dude has a serious drug problem. There's even lawsuits over it. https://corrupt.tech/1708590130-ocr-compressed.pdf https://corrupt.tech/1708590130-ocr-compressed.pdf Some highlights: > 102. Lee's increasingly erratic behavior made LTM a miserable place to work. In addition to the long hours and high-stress environment at LTM, Lee's conduct made employees uncomfortable and fearful for both their own wellbeing and the continued viability of the company. > 103. Lee would frequently use cocaine in front of LTM's clients, colleagues, certain employees, and trusted advisors. Plaintiffs Ken, Jane, Michael, John, and James all personally observed Lee's pervasive drug use. > 104. Lee would regularly leave cocaine and marijuana residue in the office. Ken, who was typically the first to arrive in the office every morning, would find Lee's leftover food, drugs, and alcohol bottles on work stations, and would clean everything up before other LTM personnel arrived. > 105. Lee made a habit of barging into Ken's living quarters in the middle of the night to play loud music, entertain random women, and use drugs. > 106. In or around February 2015, Lee wanted to hire an assistant. After interviewing a particular female candidate, Lee-a married man-insisted on hiring her because he wanted to have sex with her. Ken and Park talked Lee out of it, advising Lee that his requested conduct was wrong and could cost L TM in a potential lawsuit. Lee retorted that he did not care about any sexual harassment suit or potential liability for LTM because. he would pay any settlement out of his own pocket. > 107. Lee also stated that he wanted to start a "modeling agency" under the L TM umbrella called "Breakout Agency." Lee rented a house in the Hollywood Hills for the "models" to live in. Before renting the house and starting the agency, Lee circulated a draft memo to the male LTM executives advising them to make sure to "wear a condom" when having sex with the "models." The draft memorandum was outrageous and, like the incident above, could form the basis of a potential sexual harassment suit. Again, Ken and Park were forced to talk with Lee and insist that he refrain from sending such communication. > 108. Lee further indicated to LTM personnel that he planned to move the company's workspace to the house in Hollywood Hills, where they would work alongside the models. All LTM personnel recognized that moving the company would create an unstable and unprofessional work environment; and Jane in particular, as one of LTM's few female employees, was not comfortable with the rampant sexism that this move presaged. > 109. Making matters worse, Lee also had an ongoing relationship with a mistress that he brought to company functions and the LTM offices, despite people knowing that he was married. Lee met his mistress through a company offering female companionship for money. Lee abandoned his wife and newborn child to spend time with this woman, and their relationship was toxic. His mistress was physically and verbally abusive towards Lee, erratic and unpredictable, and caused Lee to act over-emotionally. > 110. The two fought on a daily basis. And this happened in front of LTM employees, including Plaintiffs. For example, a few days after the February 2015 Meeting, Lee and his mistress had a violent altercation at a club in front of Park, Ken, James, and other L TM personnel. His mistress became infuriated and violent when Lee did not pay attention to her to attend to a conference call concerning L TM business. She punched Lee in the face, causing Lee to lose a tooth.

neilv 5y ago

An ICANN trademark dispute might seize the domain registration, but first... Libera's principals should consult an attorney. Maybe approach the EFF, or ask a law school free legal clinic. If the attorneys say they can't help within budget, then a Libera principal can contact their state AG's office. If the AG's office can't help directly, they might know which business regulatory authority to ask. (I should note: The `whois` info doesn't indicate whether this is the doing of Freenode officials, or of some other party. So keep the pitchforks in storage, and don't let facts get clouded.)

simcop2387 5y ago
Libera is not a US entity, so the state ag advice likely doesn't apply
- neilv 5y ago
  Thanks, my bad. Or they could contact an analogous authority where they or the (suspected) Freenode is based.

aritmo 5y ago

Libera.net was registered in 2000. This whole issue can be easily resolved if anyone has a domaintools account and check the history of the libera.net domain. https://whois.domaintools.com/libera.net https://whois.domaintools.com/libera.net

techrat 5y ago
Registration/Creation date does not change when a domain is resold or renewed by a different registrar. Here's my domain: Created on 1999-01-22 Expires on 2022-01-22 Updated on 2021-02-07 I bough it from a domain auction site in 2018.
- Darmody 5y ago
  So you're responsible for tricking me into thinking I was on libera but I was on freenode instead?
  - techrat 5y ago
    You're not a very smart one. I don't own libera.net. Andrew Lee does.
    - Darmody 5y ago
      Well, you said that you bought it a couple years ago.
      - techrat 5y ago
        Like I said, you're not very bright. > > Libera.net was registered in 2000. More specifically: Libera.net: 7,868 days old Created on 2000-01-04 Pay attention to that Created on date. What I said: > Registration/Creation date does not change when a domain is resold or renewed by a different registrar. > Here's my domain: Created on 1999-01-22 I never said my domain was Libera.net. By example, I was demonstrating that with my domain, the created on date does not reflect when I bought it. Using simple logic would have made it known to you that my domain being used as an example PREDATES THE EXISTENCE OF LIBERA.NET. Fuck, pay attention to the chain of comments next time.