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.
I really apologize for the inconvenience.
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
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.
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
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.
Throwing your toys out of the ring because business is business is why open source has a funding problem.
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.
I am not sure how lawyers can write these requirements without noticing how impossible they are. Then again I had to can a project that was signed of by the lawyers of at least three different companies, the software licenses involved made it impossible to build a commercial or open source project from it (GPL, AGPL and at least two conflicting commercial ones). So it might just be that they have as much understanding of technology as I have of Chinese.