> I mean, funding projects is nice, but doing so while requiring the projects you fund to do what you request (see Freenode/Snoonet and other VPNs)

Do you have proof of PIA "required the projects [they] fund to what [they] request?" Do you have proof that the takeover of Freenode is related to that?

I'll agree that the takeover of Freenode is troubling, but you are making unsubstantiated claims, stating them as fact, and mixing in things that are actually facts (as if they somehow make your claims more true).

As someone else helpfully mentioned,

> Freenode is registered as a "private company limited by guarantee without share capital" performing "activities of other membership organisations not elsewhere classified", with Christel and Andrew Lee (PIA's founder) as officers, and Andrew Lee having the majority of voting rights. Any profits are not to be distributed under their articles of association, making it a not-for-profit company.

This means that Andrew Lee has lone control over freenode, holding the majority of voting rights. That's all I need to know to see that this is not him just funding projects, but actually about getting power in them.

If it was just about funding them, he wouldn't have to hold majority voting rights, and could just drop funding if they start doing something he disagrees with.

In general, this is a single person buying up power over major parts of the FLOSS scene, and that's not a behaviour that we should condone, or support.

You're right about this:

> that's not a behaviour that we should condone, or support

but you're extrapolating from limited data to form this opinion:

> That's all I need to know to see that this is not him just funding projects, but actually about getting power in them.

PIA took over freenode? That's really bizarre and worrysome. I had not heard this, and was somehow under the impression that freenode must have been run by a non-profit foundation, not a for-profit entity.

Freenode in its original form was slowly dying - running in partnership with Private Internet Access means they don't have to stress out quite so much about stretching every penny and the behind-the-scenes of running a non-profit, and can focus on the longer-term projects they've been trying to implement.

Freenode is registered as a "private company limited by guarantee without share capital" performing "activities of other membership organisations not elsewhere classified", with Christel and Andrew Lee (PIA's founder) as officers, and Andrew Lee having the majority of voting rights. Any profits are not to be distributed under their articles of association, making it a not-for-profit company.

Frankly speaking... I suspect that Andrew Lee is a techie who came into a pile of money and actually, legitimately wants to prevent IRC from dying.

This is extremely worrisome. What is their endgame? Who are the people behind PIA, and what is their motivation? Sure, freenode is an important network to keep alive, but PIA seems to be spreading it's influence in a lot of places.

the announcement: https://freenode.net/news/pia-fn (from April)

By owner you mean Andrew Lee? Wikipedia also mentions some "Ted Kim", but the citation does not support that claim.