Hacker News new | threads | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit yegortimoshenko (93) | logout
CopperheadOS is undergoing a company takeover (gitlab.com)
43 points by yegortimoshenko 48 minutes ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 25 comments





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?

[0]: https://paste.xinu.at/RrWPGW/

[1]: https://paste.xinu.at/MBEyCM/


The articles clearly state that we're interested in Daniel Micay adopting a refined CTO role, rather than a absentee one.

"refined" ie put in a place where you can control him explicitly

The letters also say that the CEO is sole director of the corporation, which might be relevant?

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.

Can anyone explain what’s going on to those who aren’t aware of the situation?

Also, the tweets seem to have been deleted, did anyone archive them?


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.


I'm basing my gross over-simplification off this letter: https://gitlab.com/yegortimoshenko/copperhead-takeover/blob/...

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.

What exactly have I got wrong or over-simplified?


I think those are the archives of the tweets.

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.

[1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bgK8U6...

[2] May 22 https://twitter.com/CopperheadOS/status/998953746833944576 > This account covers the technical side of CopperheadOS. >Please send all questions about sales to sales@copperhead.co. >The customer support system should be used for official support or the subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/CopperheadOS/ ) for community support. > Can't help with either here."


I couldn't find archived links, but there are a few mentions: https://www.google.com/search?q="Copperhead+as+a+company+doe...

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.

These conflicts should be resolved by the board.


You're 100% correct. :(

Lesson learned - we started Copperhead as privacy advocates and hackers, not MBA infused business developers.


note: I'm James Donaldson, the CEO of Copperhead.

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.


> It's VERY unfortunate that Daniel Micay is airing dirty laundry

>ironically, from a @gmail.com account,as he refuses to answer from his @copperhead.co address now

Go on...


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.


It seems like the company must cease operations if they can not agree. Is that the case?

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.

Isn't all the code on GitHub so anyone could continue working on it?

It's under non-free license (Creative Commons non-commercial).



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: