Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cyrnel 248 days ago
The response to that: https://andre.arko.net/2025/10/09/the-rubygems-security-inci...
1 comments

This is about a different part of the controversy, and doesn't respond to the allegation of a monetization proposal.
Yes it does. He's refuting that in this part of the post:

> When they finally did reply, they seem to have developed some sort of theory that I was interested in “access to PII”, which is entirely false. I have no interest in any PII, commercially or otherwise. As my private email published by Ruby Central demonstrates, my entire proposal was based solely on company-level information, with no information about individuals included in any way. Here’s their response, over three days later.

A very specific denial. "I didn't propose this specific type of monetization". Would be better if he followed up with "Yes, I proposed monetization, but what I had in mind was this more specific, benign form of monetization:"