[gus_massa]

> Media outlets don’t care about OSS repo acquisitions (and probably nobody else does either)

I don't want to be mean, but I'm no surprised by this.

[NewsaHackO]

Yes, and given all the emphasis placed on SEO, this post is just a advertisement

[zabzonk]

What does "OSS repo acquisition" even mean?

[jeroenhd]

They paid and hired the developer of an open source program for their AI startup to give them control over it.

I don't know why they'd report on it in startup-speak like this, I doubt investors will care. Must be an ad.

[brabel]

If the repo is popular it does have potential to funnel some users to their startup product. And apparently it did do that in the end.

[slightwinder]

Apparently, administrative permissions and the name/URL. In this case also the dev. As it's under MIT-license, they can't buy the software itself, but they can control the public appearance and merges, until someone forks it and becomes more successful.

[reverius42]

> As it's under MIT-license, they can't buy the software itself

This is a common misconception. Just because the author or original IP owner chose to release it under MIT doesn't mean they no longer own it -- and if the company wants to acquire it they can. They can never remove-from-the-internet the existing MIT-licensed versions (though they could take down their own copies), but being the owners they could certainly decide to release future versions under a different license.