Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Unless the parent comment has been edited, I'm not sure what you think is libelous about it?

It's certainly a questionable company, they either didn't bother to scan for open source software being rebundled, or deliberately chose not to scan, because they knew the result would be bad.




It looks like niggler edited his comment, but he's still saying that PG is an active proponent of this. YC companies are completely independent, and you really can't assign any blame to him for what one of YC's hundreds of portfolio companies do.

-----


PG accepted them into YC, funds them and defends them in public. If that's not an "active proponent" then I wonder how you define that term?

-----


Comment was not edited. It looks like you viscerally reacted to a comment suggesting PG isn't a deity.

-----


Ah, sorry, I thought it was edited, it seemed to read differently the second time. I was reacting to your implication that PG was somehow responsible for this, which, if you know anything about how YC operates, is obviously untrue.

Edit: Reading some of your other comments in this thread confirms that you're assuming a lot of things that aren't true to build an internal narrative and participate in this silly little drama. YC is not controlling at all, and is frequently not directly involved with guiding a company, unless the founders reach out for advice. It's a self-directed program.

-----


My comment wasn't edited -- I think the critic just realized that PG isn't holy or perfect ...

-----




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

Search: