On reading the linked legal
documents [0][1], it seems that the CEO is trying to make the case that
the CTO is focusing on CopperheadOS in a development role, rather than
looking at it as a product. I don't know if that's true or not, but I
could see why it would lead to this conflict.
However, I'm curious how
Copperhead the company can send these letters demanding that the 50%
co-owner do this or that. As equal owner, couldn't he respond to these
letters by asking the company lawyers to send a letter back to the CEO
making similar demands? Is the CEO "more in control" than the CTO
because CEO is a higher position, even though they're equal partners?
Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with with
corprate structure - would that mean he's the only member of the board?
In that case I suppose I see how he could be the one making demands,
since the CTO with only a 50% share wouldn't be able to restructure the
board to include himself.
CEO of the company, James Donaldson,
wants to boot off Daniel Micay, CTO of Copperhead and the main
developer behind CopperheadOS project. Both have 50% shareholder stake.
As of now, Daniel Micay can't use Copperhead branding anymore, and is
locked out of his own work (because copyright has been assigned to the
company), and can only use CopperheadOS under CC-BY-NC-SA.
A gross, and rather damaging, over-simplification.
Daniel
Micay is still a majority shareholder of Copperhead and thus, any
damage he does to the company with this leaking (and media coverage) is
damaging himself and the Company we've all worked for.
It
says quite clearly that you a) believe copyright belongs to the
company, b) want him to give all access to infrastructure, c) revoke his
access to Copperhead branding.
Also,
I think @CopperheadOS changed their twitter ID to @DanielMicay. If you
go to Google's cache of @CopperheadOS [1] and click on the date next to
one of the tweets (example [2]), it redirects to the live version of the
tweet under @DanielMicay.
Never going to touch this shit.
So-called secure and private but at least one of the founders is
untrustworthy (since each is essentially calling the other out, at least
one of them is in the wrong).
This is why after incorporation, you
should transfer the rights to all code, trademark and other
Intellectual Property to the company to prevent the situations like
this.
We're
hoping there is a peaceful resolution to this. It's VERY unfortunate
that Daniel Micay is airing dirty laundry - internal confidential
documents that are directed towards him (ironically, from a @gmail.com
account,as he refuses to answer from his @copperhead.co address now).
ESPECIALLY from a company asset (@copperheadOS) that is damaging to
Copperhead the company, our users and our employees.
As it currently stands, Daniel Micay has been and still is a majority shareholder of Copperhead.
I'm interested and open to discussions regarding these issues. Feel free to email me - james.donaldson@copperhead.co
Daniel Micay is literally the guy
behind Copperhead. He is the author of overwhelming majority of commits
to CopperheadOS repos and almost single-handedly maintains hardened
Linux kernel. Quite literally: open any repo in https://github.com/Copperhead or https://github.com/CopperheadOS and look how much thestinger (Daniel Micay) has been working on all of this.
What you're doing is despicable and unfair. Please resign.
Thanks for the feedback but that's
not going to happen - Copperhead exists because of our hard work and
your inability to understand that displays your inability to understand
the situation. Code does not sell itself and companies exist to support
employees and users, not attack each other on a public (company)
account.
Out of curiosity, are you familiar
with strcat's previous involvement and later dis-involvement in the Rust
community? (slash, were you, when you started working with him?)
It's
not my story to tell at all, as someone who's not a Rust core
contributor or anything (and certainly wasn't at the time), but http://slash-r-slash-rust.github.io/archived/2u1dme.html
is part of it. (IIRC the /r/rust mods archived that thread on GitHub as
a compromise between deleting something from Reddit and leaving
something Googleable with his name.) There was a lot of dirty laundry in
public and my impression is that neither he nor the Rust core
maintainers left that situation happy.
I, as well as all other people in Copperhead, would prefer this issue disappear and we can go back to protecting our users.
However,
now that the cat is out of the bag: if you notice, the letters are
addressed to danielmicay@gmail.com because he refused to answer (or use
PGP regarding these answers, which has me believe he's okay with Google
reading our internal drama) using his Copperhead email address.
This would be the last option.
Copperhead and CopperheadOS are too important a product and company to
just disappear because of one minor business dispute.
Curious if anyone managed to
screenshot or archive the tweets, as the entire account has been removed
from twitter it would seem. Always interested in these kinds of
stories/drama as case studies for what to look out for in future
endeavors.
However, I'm curious how Copperhead the company can send these letters demanding that the 50% co-owner do this or that. As equal owner, couldn't he respond to these letters by asking the company lawyers to send a letter back to the CEO making similar demands? Is the CEO "more in control" than the CTO because CEO is a higher position, even though they're equal partners?
[0]: https://paste.xinu.at/RrWPGW/
[1]: https://paste.xinu.at/MBEyCM/
reply