@CelloMomOnCars
closed without a fight? what do you mean? all those concessions were the result of worker's struggles, massive and combative strikes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asturian_miners%27_strike_of_2012

@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)

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

@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.

@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.

@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

@LeoSammallahti seems to me that you are caught in thinking about countries instead of people. nato does not protect people, that is abundantly clear, quite the opposite. if we don't let ourselves be sidetracked into that, it's easy to see that we should oppose war (current, in-progress war) and all preparations, shenanigans, propaganda, lies, profit motive that leads to war. that is nato.

@LeoSammallahti maybe. that may be true. but i was trying to say that those questions do not concern me. i'm not a government, i don't think like a government. what i do know is that the existence of nato is itself a threat - it is a military block, used by states and oligarchs to pressure, threaten and wage wars. 1/2

@LeoSammallahti hence, i'm not concerned with discerning when a country joining nato would be beneficial for that country, since an expanded nato is a bigger threat to every person and therefore i oppose that, along with other military blocks and imperialist countries. i side with people, not countries, and refuse to think it the terms of countries, as those are generally against people everywhere.

@LeoSammallahti you say that i'm being idealistic, but i think it is quite the other way around. how operative is your question and answer to the issue at hand? what do you do with your reasoning, how does that change what you do? you vote differently next time? thinking, talking of we-as-country is the wrong framework, it's precisely what brought us here. there is no we with oligarchs, nato, or state. those are not my interests. my interests are those of people, here and in other places.