I must say, I really don't think you know me very well. I am not interested in any kind of theatrics over whether Gio or Hussie wins the good person competition. In fact, I really don't care very much at all about what Gio is like or what he wants. Is everything you say about him accurate? Probably not, but that's not my problem.

What matters is how Homestuck handled the UHC. With or without Gio's commentary, the discord logs display nigh-unquestionably a situation in which Gio was pressured to disavow Sarah Z's video and contradict his own coverage of Hussie's misconduct. When he refuses, Hussie is the one to get the law involved. Nobody forced them to do this, and Miles is not denying any of this in his response.

This is the problem. This is what the blogpost is built on. This is the thing that, if Gio is lying, should be the easiest thing in the world to deny or disprove, and the rest of his arguments would collapse with it. Seems like a valuable idea for a damage control thread. So why aren't they doing that? Why is Miles's post so cagey about the terms, when clarifying those would supposedly completely destroy Gio's allegation? And if there is some reason they can't just say it, why are you so sure that's what it would do, and why can't they even tell us that?

Look. This is the extent of what Miles says about the license. A grand total of about four sentences that actually address the most important part of Gio's long-ass self-important rant.

So the key points are:
1. Gio is wrong to say he did everything he could, because he didn't sign a license (no mention of why that might be)

2. Because of that, he doesn't get to make the UHC anymore. We're taking it from him.

3. Gio is trying to "control access" to Homestuck? So I guess kici or the MSPFA mirror or chadthundercock just don't count?

4. Gio wouldn't have been able to shittalk Hussie and Homestuck anymore if he signed. This is probably true.

5. "he was asked to help recontextualize events". So that's the "take down articles critical of Hiveswap's development and publicly disavowi the Sarah Z video" thing.

6. Gio is the problem, because he didn't just sign whatever we put in front of him.

Do you see how nowhere in here is there the slightest consideration of the idea that what they asked of him wasn't okay? That apparently Gio needs to be punished with a DMCA for not falling in line? That "take down your articles and publicly humiliate yourself over a video you didn't know was going to quote them" got so heavily laundered?

Gio could be a real piece of shit, for all I know. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But whatever Miles says, "this is about Gio" rings pretty hollow when the UHC is an open-source piece of software that initially had two developers. And importantly, if they just said "that's too bad" and parted ways amicably, not only do I doubt Gio would've made the blogpost, the UHC would still be in active development. So for all this handwringing that "Gio is the problem", none of this would be complete without that takedown.