Conversation

Notices

1. The New Oil (thenewoil@freeradical.zone)'s status on Thursday, 30-Jun-2022 04:40:27 UTC The New Oil

   Thunderbird acquires K-9 Mail

   https://blog.thunderbird.net/2022/06/revealed-thunderbird-on-android-plans-k9/

   • zeh (zeh@mstdn.io)'s status on Thursday, 30-Jun-2022 04:40:26 UTC zeh

     in reply to

     @thenewoil "acquires"? weird formulation. they hired the original developer and proposed to integrate k-9 into the thunderbird "brand". to change the name, right? they didn't "acquire" a company, that term is not accurate here and is actually misleading

   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Thursday, 30-Jun-2022 04:40:26 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • zeh
     @zeh @thenewoil The main person working on the project is now hired by them and they now control the trademarks, copyright and repos. This is a classic acquihire, the only difference being there is no pre-existing company structure to integrate.
   • zeh (zeh@mstdn.io)'s status on Saturday, 02-Jul-2022 02:45:04 UTC zeh

     in reply to

     • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     @clacke @thenewoil Nah, there's another big difference in that repos and copyright don't need to be acquired as they are copyleft and therefore not private capital. My point was precisely that "acquisition" is not an appropriate term to apply to digital assets held in common. That's the language of capitalism, keep it away. This is without knowledge of details in that agreement, trademarks, whatever.

   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Saturday, 02-Jul-2022 02:45:04 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • zeh
     @zeh @thenewoil But the truth is the assets are not held in common, someone legally and/or technically controls them and they were exchanged for employment.
     
     You don't have to like capitalism, I don't, but then it's even more important to note that the assets of what used to be an independent project are now under a corporate structure.
   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Saturday, 02-Jul-2022 02:50:19 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • zeh
     This is the same thing as what happened when Audacity was acquired.
     
     It was a project where several academics owned the copyright and the project was licensed to the public under the GPL with no one party able to bring it under another license. Now it's all under one corporation that is not forced to abide by the license.
     
     The only difference between the Audacity and K-9 acquisitions is that in the K-9 case the corporation (MZLA Technologies Corporation) is owned by a charitable foundation rather than being a for-profit corporation (Muse Group).
     
     @thenewoil @zeh
   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Saturday, 02-Jul-2022 02:54:05 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • Jacky Alcine
     @jalcine Exactly. This was a capitalist transaction. If "acquisition" is a dirty word it is because it describes a capitalist transaction.
   • Jacky Alcine (jalcine@todon.eu)'s status on Saturday, 02-Jul-2022 02:54:06 UTC Jacky Alcine

     in reply to

     Good point. It's dangerous to dilute the context in which things occur. (https://jacky.wtf/2022/7/Mkdl)

   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Monday, 04-Jul-2022 00:23:19 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • zeh
     @zeh @thenewoil The corporation could take any future version private as they like. If that seems too farfetched, they could also MPLv2 the whole thing and someone else might make proprietary additions.
   • zeh (zeh@mstdn.io)'s status on Monday, 04-Jul-2022 00:23:20 UTC zeh

     in reply to

     • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     @clacke @thenewoil Hmm. I see your points, but i'm still not convinced. This is not an acquisition in the same sense that a product or a company gets acquired. The code will never be privatized and the code is what makes a project, essentially. So it doesn't make sense to me to use the same wording, as it gives the erroneous impression that it's useless to copyleft the code. The K-9 and Audacity projects will remain available to everyone to use and fork, they were not enclosed in that sense.

   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Monday, 04-Jul-2022 00:45:07 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • zeh
     @zeh @thenewoil I have some idea what your point is, but not quite sure.
     
     GitLab the corporation bought the assets of Gitorious the corporation, hired the employees and discontinued Gitorious the service.
     
     Anyone today would still have the rights to revive Gitorious the project, it's GPLv2, but nobody has.
     
     Would you say it makes sense to say GitLab acquired Gitorious?
   • zeh (zeh@mstdn.io)'s status on Monday, 04-Jul-2022 00:45:08 UTC zeh

     in reply to

     • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     @clacke @thenewoil yes, they could/can. So? That doesn't address my point.

   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Monday, 04-Jul-2022 02:29:53 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • zeh
     @zeh @thenewoil Ok, then I understand your line, thanks.
   • zeh (zeh@mstdn.io)'s status on Monday, 04-Jul-2022 02:29:55 UTC zeh

     in reply to

     • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     @clacke @thenewoil yes, i would say that gitlab acquired gitorious the company. i would not say that gitlab acquired the gitorious project, because that code is under the gpl and cannot therefore be enclosed (privatised, removed from the commons)