Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaving Freenode for a new network

kline.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 310 posts

Re: Leaving Freenode for a new network

#231

Post by nabakin »

bjourne wrote: post #51

I have been on Freenode for the last 10 to 20 years but I have absolutely no clue what this is all about. Neither this resignation letter nor the last explains it very well other than that the resigning staff apparently wants me to quit Freenode and join their network instead. I see no compelling reason to do so. Understanding whether there is some "substance" to this drama appears completely impossible. [removed sni…

Have you read these letters?

https://fuchsnet.ch/freenode-resign-letter.txt https://gist.github.com/jesopo/45a3e9cdbe517dc55e6058eb43b00...

Re: Leaving Freenode for a new network

#232

Post by cheph »

aliljet wrote: post #19

Pointing the entire community to a new server (ircs://irc.libera.chat/) is going to cause a huge disruption, maybe destroy the community altogether. I can't help but wonder if there's no better way. What a tragedy.

I dunno who the "We" is in "We are founding a new network with the same goals and ambitions to support foss and likeminded communities: libera.chat."

But if it is the same people who mismanaged freenode into this joke then maybe nobody should go there. Just a heads up. I think this Andrew Lee person would have a tough time being worse than them.

How long until they sell libera.chat for a pack of magic beans? I give it 2 years max.

Re: Leaving Freenode for a new network

#233

Post by jasonzemos »

thih9 wrote: post #126
blibble wrote: post #15

I submitted this link under the title "freenode IRC network purchased by VPN company PIA" back in 2017: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14101538 it hit the top of the front page, and people complained about my use of the word "purchased" (including freenode staff now that seem to be extremely upset...): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14102030 needless to say the title was edited...

> needless to say the title was edited... Congrats on spotting the danger early. Still, I support editing the title back to the original. Avoiding editorialised titles is important, it means that opinions are shared in comments and it's easier to have a neutral discussion. Back then you were right about the purchase but it seems that you weren't able to get your point across to the others; I wish people listened more…

The title was edited only after the original propitiated the story into notoriety. The votes before and after the intervention therefor became in conflict. Hacker News aided in the spread of disinformation.

Re: Leaving Freenode for a new network

#234

Post by that_guy_iain »

gojomo wrote: post #221
that_guy_iain wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, the infrastructure for the servers can be replace and when that is done there is a high chance >75% of the users remain. There will always be other people willing to volunteer. I remember the AOL ICQ IRC had volunteer opers and there is no way you can think that wasn't fully a for-profit setup.

If your analysis centers on 'servers', I think you're missing the point of concerns about describing an "IRC network" as being "purchased", and other aspects that make some Freenode channels interesting.

I think you miss the point, my point is that point is moot. A community is about people, if the people don't move the community stays. Sure there seems to be some very vocal very committed staffers leaving but a major part of Freenode when I was using it was the people who had massive amount of knowledge and were sharing it on a regular basis. If those people stay then Freenode lives on even as a corporate sell out.

Re: Leaving Freenode for a new network

#235

Post by thih9 »

taurath wrote: post #143
thih9 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> needless to say the title was edited... Congrats on spotting the danger early. Still, I support editing the title back to the original. Avoiding editorialised titles is important, it means that opinions are shared in comments and it's easier to have a neutral discussion. Back then you were right about the purchase but it seems that you weren't able to get your point across to the others; I wish people listened more…

I’m in the camp of whatever title seems less biased and more directly describes what is happening should win out. As someone with only a passing interest in freenode which I used to use but no longer do, learning they were bought is much more relevant than the implication they formed a partnership. I understand that there is grey area over whether they were “bought”, but a partnership doesn’t seem to cover what went…

> a partnership doesn’t seem to cover what went down in any way

True, but we only know that in hindsight. At the time the claim about acquisition was disputed [1] [2]. If somebody replied with information about voting rights [3] then perhaps the "joining forces" title would have been treated as misleading and replaced with "purchased by".

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14102301

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14102139

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27207992

Re: Leaving Freenode for a new network

#236

Post by marcan_42 »

Apparently London Trust Media, the company founded by Andrew Lee and which purchased Freenode, has now rebranded under the name "Imperial Family Companies". londontrustmedia.com now redirects to https://imperialfamily.com/ and it lists Freenode under Technology.

Andrew Lee also claims to be the crown prince of Korea, which was no doubt the inspiration for this move: https://www.latimes.com/business/real-estate/story/2020-12-0...

Lee also hired Mark Karpelès (of Mt.Gox infamy) as CTO of London Trust Media. and he is still listed as CTO of Shells.com, which is also owned by Imperial Family Companies: https://www.shells.com/l/en-US/team

Edit: Comment was moved, reworded to make it work in its new context.

Re: Leaving Freenode for a new network

#237

Post by xfitm3 »

Macha wrote: post #226
xfitm3 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hostname mask is used to authenticate users. If someone can impersonate a hostname mask there are bigger problems. Nicknames are ephemeral. It is designed to be this way. You can use SASL and connect with a certificate to give yourself a fingerprint to validate your identity. It's fun and simple. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

However, people or their clients use /msg NickServ. The passwords are sent to something identified by a nick only. I don't believe you if you claim people are doing a /who NickServ and checking the hostname mask first. SASL is definitely an improvement over NickServ.

I use SASL to authenticate with NickServ on Freenode. My IRC client automatically looks up the hostname of users I message.

Re: Leaving Freenode for a new network

#238

Post by wut42 »

nabakin wrote: post #222
wut42 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tomaw fought legally with Lee to get the sale contract from what I've read; and apparently it _does_ legitimately own the network.

I've read a lot of chat logs and so far I've only seen Andrew try to claim he owns the whole network, domain, copyrights, etc whereas it seems he only owns freenode Ltd which owns the domain that has a client to the irc network. The volunteer staff of the irc network say the irc network itself is hosted on servers owned by sponsors of the network who are not affiliated with freenode Ltd. Up to what I read, they were…

the thing is, IMO, that once Christel shut down the PDPC (the entity behind freenode a long time ago), Freenode just became "Christel" owned. And Christel sold everything under shady reasons (without really saying everything was sold) to Lee.

Some resignations letters say that it seems to say this.

Re: Leaving Freenode for a new network

#239

Post by wut42 »

Chris2048 wrote: post #206
wut42 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tomaw fought legally with Lee to get the sale contract from what I've read; and apparently it _does_ legitimately own the network.

By "network", do you mean the domains? What did the sale contract say?

I mean everything that makes freenode freenode. I don't know what the contract say exactly, but by reading the resignations letters, especially this one https://gist.github.com/aaronmdjones/1a9a93ded5b7d162c3f58bd... :

    What has become clear to us in the last few days is that we were lied to,
    by both Andrew and christel. Contrary to public and private statements, the
    sale included the network as a whole, something christel should not have
    had the ability to relinquish, as most of the infrastructure is not owned
    by her or any of us. However, Andrew has more money than us, and so we
    cannot fight this.
Post reply on HN