And when he is asked if the problem should be to keep the employees rather than hide them he added "the subject does not interest me enough to continue the discussion".
I think the whole 'poaching' term is hilarious. If you're afraid of 'poaching' you should just... you know... treat your employees with respect and make sure they are happy with their job. If they are they won't get poached. Simple.
Why not? It's not as if it will make a difference - developers are already bombarded daily with many recruiters, some of whom actually represent good positions at good companies.
The market for programmers right now is very efficient. If someone isn't being paid well enough, or treated well enough, than they can get on the free market, this problem will resolve itself very shortly.
What this company is doing is basically security through obscurity, except made hopeless by the fact that I have no doubt all of his developers are being courted frequently via non-company channels.
It's very common for upper management to have profiles on corporate websites. I also know one small-medium company off the top of my head where most of the technical leadership are on their website, too (most sans direct contact information, but that's hardly difficult to come by if you're looking to hire someone).
I don't recall the name, but I recently encountered another company (I believe a startup that showed up on HN) that appeared to have most of its staff displayed on their site. I remember not so much because it was unusual in itself, but because it was extremely prominent. This company was obviously very proud of the people working for them, and quite pleased to let the world know.
Oles is a very "nice" guy. I had a couple of servers at OVH and one time we've been DDoS'ed, we hade no idea why, but Oles wrote an email to us telling us that he's terminating our contract and banning us (after 2 years there). We had no clue about who that was that attacked us. I replied and asked him why he was doing that. He told me: "You should ask yourself. You've made some enemies, deal with it".
Right. Because by doing that he is sure to greatly increase the value of his organization.
As I understand Hacker News (... this is just my opinion ...) it is a forum for people who want to found companies based on technology and grow them big, and the people who want to work for them or with them on those ventures.
If your mindset (as a founder or as an employee) is that the CEO's job is to "destroy career aspirations" or otherwise exhibit PHB-like qualities, then that's not an attitude worth keeping. Why? Because if that's how you feel about CEO's and bosses in general then you'll end up being a bad CEO/boss or working for bad CEOs/bosses.
The job of a CEO is to build a great team, secure them the appropriate resources to do great things, and make sure they are motivated and focused on a shared set of goals.
In other words: the main job of a CEO is to advance the career aspirations of his most talented employees--because that will create value for the organization in the long-run.
If it is kernel updates or anything installed on a customer's machine and he refuses the customer access to the code, he is in breach of the GPL.
I think it is time I looked for an alternate location to host the things I have on OVH servers, I don't want to be offering financial support to this sort of thing if I can help it.
He has another problem with OpenStack; he made this claim:
> @tcarrez on nous a fait clairement comprendre qu'il y a aucun espoir de reprendre nos patchs sur MOVE si c'est pas dans la roadmap/sponsor.
We were clearly made to understand that there was no hope to take our MOVE work if it wasn't in the roadmap/sponsor.
> on veut pas de nos patchs. nos besoins ne sont pas dans la roadmap. il faut payer pour la modifier.
Our patches aren't wanted. Our needs aren't on the roadmap. You have to pay to change it.
Thierry Carrez is the OpenStack release manager, sits on the technical committee, and posted some links on OpenStack's open governance (which don't mention a roadmap; the term may have been used loosely). As long as they keep talking[1], this may still end well for everyone.
That is correct, v2 of that license has requirements for attribution within source and IIRC requires the same license to be maintained on that code (but not linked code) if it is redistributed, but has no actual requirement to distribute the code or derived works. Earlier versions of the license also required attribution visible to the users of derived, but that has been dropped.
v2 of the Apache license has been declared GPL v3 compatible which is why some people think there is an explicit code sharing clause when there isn't (IIRC if you mix GPLv3 and ALv2 code the result should be considered GPLv3).
That considered OVH aren't talking about not taking part as the licenses says they should which settles my mind on that count, though they have marked themmselves as a company I probably wouldn't want to work for.
I'm having flashbacks to the Python trademark mess. From what I know of OVH, the CEO is the owner, so there's no effective oversight. He'll drag the company down with him.
Last time we shared a patch, someone poached our developer, since then I've forbidden to publish patches.
To someone asking if it wasn't more of an internal issue:
Then later he rant about "the true motivation of GitHub".