Previous actions aside, when is it ever a good idea to argue with internet trolls in _any_ comment section as a CEO? Especially when it involves executive level disputes?
What could you possibly gain that would be a net gain from commenting here? Aren't you concerned about customer and investor blow back from you simply commenting outside of a legal letter seeking a peaceful resolution?
If you legitimately can't continue without your co-founder, you'll probably get the most mileage out of a coding bootcamp or a CS degree. As a non-technical founder you face an insurmountable knowledge and culture gap.
Actually, the letter says "On the assumption that you have no wish to depart the Company, the elements of a CTO
job description the Company considers important are set out in the attached proposed
job description. We invite your comments on that draft." So without the contents of the attachment, we can't know what actions you're saying you expect of him.
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.
I don't think "wants to boot" is an accurate conclusion from a, b, and c; someone working in a company (as opposed to someone working on a personal project alone) should assign copyright to the company and share infrastructure / account access with other people in the company.
(Also I think it's super weird for you to use HN as a forum to push this dispute.)
It's weird to me. Because on the one hand I can see your point of view, on the other hand - if the CTO of a company is withholding access to things from the CEO that's strange. Is that a recent development, or is that just to prevent the CEO taking control? I don't know.
It seems possible one of them is a bad egg. Or perhaps they have just had a very bad falling out. It does appear to be the case that because one guy is a/the coder, everyone is being more sympathetic to him. I haven't chosen a side yet - and I'm still reading through everything.
Hopefully this gets resolved and after it the bad egg (if one exists) leaves the company.
This is kinda how building business around tech & IP works. The IP (copyright, patents, etc.) is assigned to the company so when they seek investment the investors know what they are getting. That or the IP is licensed which doesn't appear to be the case. The guy assigning the IP still owns it given he is a 50% shareholder. IMO this bike shredding of an issue is more detrimental to the going concern of the project than anything. The guy wrote the majority of the code it would be moronic for him to get booted which is why I highly doubt the other dude is trying to get rid of him and this is a misunderstanding of how this process works.
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.
How many commits do you have? If the answer is 0, whatever you've been doing was probably not as productive or useful as anything your partner has been doing for years. If the guy who has written 90% of the code ghosts his CEO co-founder, my bet is it's the CEO being useless and not the CTO and I trust his word way more than yours. Regardless of how the CTO has handled this, you are clearly in the wrong somehow.
> How many commits do you have? If the answer is 0, whatever you've been doing was probably not as productive or useful as anything your partner has been doing for years.
Tell me, does your employer's CEO have as many commits in the codebase as you do?
If not, why are you working for this CEO instead of for yourself?
edit: yes, in our case the CEO actually got his hands dirty when he had his idea and wrote a huge amount of code with no prior experience until the company had enough momentum to hire developers. A lot less than you would ever do clearly, based on your responses.
Look at who you're replying to. I'm not the CEO. I'm not affiliated with Copperhead at all. I'm a random systems programmer who actually knows the subject area.
Exactly! (FWIW, I don't think fighting this in the court of public opinion, district of Hacker News is worth your time. The venue is prejudiced to believing that systems programming is a rare skill and we must all bow down to people who can do it, which is certainly not my experience as an actual systems programmer.)
If you think so little of yourself, why should we listen to you? I'm not saying we should all bow down to systems programming, I just think "CEO" is a role that doesn't need to exist for a company like this. You could probably roll up most of the daily duties of said CEO and have them carried out by an intern-level sales guy. Technical people should be setting the direction of technical projects. When they don't have the skillset, they should delegate. There is no need for this amorphous "CEO" person who has tons of power but no skills to back it up. The exception is if they came up with the idea, and helped execute it from the beginning.
Sales is means, not a goal in and of itself. What you're suggesting is a broken economic model that doesn't honor people that add to the world (i.e. authors).
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.
Is this drama being made public intentionally as a form of brand recognition campaign? While questionable, this seems like an effective way to have a lot of media coverage (of course assuming that my hypothesis is true)
As if Google even cares about this. Seriously, check your ego. You are just focusing on the gmail thing to take focus away from whatever the actual dispute is.
Is there that big of a security risk if they can read the contents of your clipboard? The only example I can think of is if the app is a webview that you use to login to sensitive accounts and it scans the page for a login/password field and saves the login and sends back the clipboard info if found. It seems like reading random clipboard info isn't going to get linked to anything though (please correct me if I'm wrong).
I'd say that's a security risk and it's severity depends on the data you have on your device. The example you state is pretty serious: being able to get the master password from your Android Keypass file or LastPass master password would be a game-over situation!
