[mynameisvlad]

As I said, the part that is unclear is how much “freenode limited” owns.

The core of freenode- the servers themselves- are sponsored and owned by third parties. The volunteers maintaining the infrastructure are not affiliated with the corporation either.

So really what this whole mess has boiled down to is what is the delineation between freenode limited and freenode-the-volunteer-run-sponsored-network. Andrew believes he owns everything, and the former staff believe he only owns the name, trademark, and potentially the website/domain.

[pedrocr]

> the former staff believe he only owns the name, trademark, and potentially the website/domain

That's my reading too but apparently the staff did hand over the network on their way out. So now freenode is apparently actually consolidated into the Freenode Limited company with both the name/DNS/trademark and the network itself. The legal situation behind those moves is not public and is probably the only thing left to be known.

[mynameisvlad]

It just goes back to my point, though, what is "the network" and what can any one person or group of people hand over?

The ssh keys to the servers? Sure, but that doesn't mean freenode ltd now owns the servers or the software running on them. They've just been given operational control over them (which I guess is exactly what Andrew wanted at the end of the day) but who exactly owns "the network" if that's even possible is still incredibly murky, at least to me.

A "network" is a very nebulous thing when everything is informal and run by volunteers and sponsors.

[pedrocr]

I'd say that if you control both the DNS and own the network data (chanserv/nickserv/etc) you own the network. You can at any point stand up an entirely different infrastructure, staffed by entirely different people, switch over to it and the users just migrate over as they reconnect. It would look like a really bad net split that doesn't resolve without reconnecting. The splintering network can just advertise a new DNS and fork the network although legally they may not have a claim on the data.

In this case it seems the DNS might have been sold in rather murky circumstances a while ago although the technical control of the DNS was not handed over. That seems to be the DNS change that was the focal point for the current crisis, when, presumably under legal threat, the staff handed that over.

The network data doesn't seem to have been explicitly owned by anyone. The volunteers managed the servers donated by other entities. In a court it would probably be really hard to figure out who owned that data given the lack of an entity the users where agreeing to a ToS with. But now the Freenod Limited company does control everything at least technically. If there was a hostile takeover it was that one. The staff apparently didn't think they could just take a backup of the data and move it over to the new network either. Maybe they've conceded they didn't have a claim on that data or they were cautious for legal reasons.

[mynameisvlad]

Very good points. I had read your other comment saying the same and it makes a lot of sense; the service databases likely are the "true" network since everything else can be changed around it.

> The staff apparently didn't think they could just take a backup of the data and move it over to the new network.

I doubt we'll ever find out if it's because they believed freenode ltd owned the data or just didn't want to deal with the inevitable legal battle that would certainly ensue. Sad that often times it's just the person with the stronger legal team that wins in these situations.