I was earlier recommended a service to exchange bitcoin to monero, would it make a difference from simply exchanging via cake wallet?

Moreover is there an android wallet you would recommend more than cake wallet?

<ZarterPleaseping> "Moreover is there an android..." <- I use the monerujo wallet but cake is great too. You'll maybe get a little higher fee swapping in cake vs a CEX but it's convenient. They have great support on reddit too.

<ZarterPleaseping> "I was earlier recommended a..." <- I use tradeogre.com personally. But cake is fine if you like the price.

transatoshi[m]: I am more concerned about the privacy, for example no kyc, no login etc.

You do have to give email but they do have 2fa which I like.

Thoughts of web3?

Please give some examples of "web3" things that are in actual use, are useful, are trustworthy, and would withstand the influx of hundreds of millions of users.

Just like the boring and old "web1"

isn't it a way of monetizing and controlling ?

You mean something with the name of "web" but not actually being a web? :)

I meant the way people are talking about it supposedly being decentralized, uncensorable and whatever. Sounds to good to be true. And unmanageable

Maybe you should trust you gut feeling then. And if that's wrong, web3 will enter your life soon enough anyway, no need for FOMO

<Siren[m]> "web0.small-web.org" <- Now that sounds like a dream

However also unmanageable, how would they prevent cp and something of the sort?

ZarterPleaseping: What's wrong with chocolate pudding?

Everyone doesn't like chocolate pudding

Seethe

ZarterPleaseping: Same as today

Internet is already decentralized

So basically nothing with change

For monerophp proposal: repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/c…als/-/merge_requests/402#note_22039

<spirobel[m]> "It gives too much power to the..." <- Same goes for GPL btw

Or any other copyleft license

All contributors must agree on a license change or there must be CLAs

AGPL is open and free but it will prevent development of proprietary applications that interact with it over the network

* AGPL is open and free. The catch here is that if someone is running modified version of Cuprate let's say. And the users are interacting with its RPC through a web application. The source of modified Cuprate must be open to the users.

AGPL is like GPLv3, it additionally covers the SaaS aspect

You can take MongoDB as an example. Community edition is AGPL. Your proprietary application can use it as a database. Only if you have made changes to the code of your MongoDB instance, you must make these changes open source. You application that interacts with mongo can stay proprietary.

IMHO hard rule is too much. There are many software ecosystems where it is hard to write non-GPL code because of how intertwined packages are.

spirobel[m]: Not that complex

If you would link or anyhow include Cuprate in your app, then you can treat it as GPL

spirobel[m]: Yes you can own the copyright (require ACLs to be signed so things stay this way) and also rock an AGPL license

Don't get what's unclear for you

spirobel[m]: Then forbid ACLs

* Then forbid CLAs

You will end up with the same scenario with any license as long as ACLs are present

s/ACLs/CLAs/

I'll make it MIT

Another thing to note is that you cannot make it MIT if you include a single GPLv3 component

But vise versa works

I like MIT. I try to make my projects MIT. To follow open source rules, I usually have to make my projects GPL since I use functions from packages that are GPL. A hard rule is too impractical.

I like AGPL because it does prevent abuse coming from corporate. Another nice thing is that you can sell licenses to people who do not want to contribute back to the project by publishing their changes.

* I like GPLv3 and AGPLv3 because it does prevent abuse coming from corporate. Another nice thing is that you can sell licenses to people who do not want to contribute back to the project by publishing their changes.

Honestly I don't sympathise with corporate and don't see why you'd be so worried about AGPL

I simply won't run anything proprietary that deals with Monero

Siren[m]: And that license prevents these

spirobel[m]: You can simply not offer the license money. And guess what if there's no CLA, you can't anyway

You're looking at it wrong

* You can simply not offer the commercial license. And guess what if there's no CLA, you can't anyway

You won't have legal issues or lawsuits or anything if you just go with GPL/AGPL and no CLAs

Monero-serai is MIT

I sure hope there won't be a proprietary shitcoin fork of Monero based on Cuprate

Yes there's nothing wrong with those companies

And they aren't the only ones with this business model

Other examples (also those in your screenshot) that aren't "database companies" include nextcloud and wolfssl

If you would like to give companies the freedom to abuse their users over SaaS, sure then go with GPLv3

<plowsof11> ""Rust Monero node that Synthetic..." <- They created the node under MIT, I joined and we changed it to AGPL/MIT

I'm now in full control of the project and they are not going to be contactable so I might have to keep it AGPL ...

Because remember at the end of the day AGPL exists to protect the 4 freedoms

* In reply to @plowsof:matrix.org

"Rust Monero node that SyntheticBird45 started" are they happy with MIT

They created the node under MIT, I joined and we changed it to AGPL/MIT

I'm now in full control of the project but they are not going to be contactable so I might have to keep it AGPL ...

Odoo, Mongo, Nextcloud, WolfSSL and many others I know are nice software (or products if you're willing to pay). They're doing well.

spirobel[m]: Digilol does write AGPL software if you didn't know

And use AGPL software as well without modifications

This has never been a problem for us

Another nice example is Pretix, the ticket sales system we used for Monerokon. Goes to show how you can have Apache 2 parts in AGPL'd software github.com/pretix/pretix/blob/master/LICENSE

Linux kernel (GPL) also has some parts necessary for writing kernel modules licensed under Apache 2

s/Apache/more/, s/2/permissive licenses./

The database

I did everything else

I'll at least change all the parts I wrote to MIT

I think you should license the daemon under GPLv3 and keep the libraries MIT

* I think you should license the daemon under GPLv3 and keep the libraries MIT

So at least the daemon source must be available to the users who run it

Siren[m]: Surly this won't actually help as all the complex bits will be MIT, how much would you want licensed under GPL

boog900[m]: It would help because most end users won't be dealing with the libraries. I'd prefer the binaries (daemons and RPC servers) to be GPL.

I'll probably rewrite the database if synthetic bird doesn't return

How bout Apache 2.0?

kayabanerve[m]: Prevention of proprietary software of course. I don't want proprietary wallets etc that ship with modified versions of these.

kayabanerve[m]: > <@kayabanerve:matrix.org> ... except

> 1) Wallets would use monero-serai which is MIT

> 2) Even if a wallet wanted a piece of Cuprate, it'd be via a lib. You said libs MIT

They may include proprietary daemons.

kayabanerve[m]: I'm not a fan of this either but too late for everyone to collective agree and change that

It's AGPL

spirobel[m]: Yes and with AGPL that is the case

Stop misleading people with CLAs and stuff

That's completely unrelated to AGPL

Here is a quick recap of the terms for anyone who isn't familiar with AGPL. choosealicense.com/licenses/agpl-3.0

There isn't much difference between AGPL and GPL other than usage over the network terms.

I'd generally support MIT over AGPL from my limited understanding

spirobel[m]: It doesn't matter what license you choose, you can still write good code. The end user and the ecosystem gets affected.

<plowsof11> "boog900: make it agpl and..." <- I do want to change it to MIT though

maybe syntheticbird will reply to you eventually

btw haveno's backend license is AGLP (from bisq), but the ui which the ccs covered is under Apache 2.0

spirobel[m]: That most likely is not possible since he didn't use his legal full name in there

he won't be able to prove he is syntheticbird that far into the future

doesn't mean that this risk should be taken

it seems like a small component so rewriting it should not be an issue if you wanna go with a non-compatible license

you will not have legal issues or need to have a career in that

Just to be clear I don't really care what license you use at the end of the day as long as it's copyleft. AGPL and GPL are strong and necessary tools for software freedom. I don't like misinformation to be spread about them.

spirobel: you still haven't explained what you're doubting exactly. Even with MIT in case of license term violations, you will run into legal trouble.

Ownership terms are clear and precise

The current problems with Cuprate are not caused by the code being licensed under AGPL, it's a problem that is caused by wanting to do a license change on a component that has a maintainer that is no longer active.

You couldn't change it if it were MIT either

or Apache 2.0

or anything

spirobel[m]: And that's where you are wrong. It is absolutely possible to downgrade from AGPL to MIT if all contributors agree. It doesn't matter if it gets less or more restrictive. License changes are possible whenever all contributors collectively agree on it.

well don't just lie about a license then lmao

some things here are just out of ass

spirobel[m]: This has nothing to do with AGPL specific licensing terms. This is how copyleft licenses work, period.

my understanding is MIT will let people do whatever they want with the code, so there is no liability with the state, whereas AGPL introduces the possibility for legal action to be taken against people

that is so wrong lmao

them and anyone else can "steal" it and brand it however they want. it's all open

and if they don't, they are subject to state intervention

You can get sued by violating MIT terms, AGPL/GPL only offers stronger protection for the maintainer against patent trolls etc.

Both licenses have no warranty and liability terms.

s/by/for/

* You can get sued for violating MIT terms, AGPL/GPL only offers stronger protection for the maintainer against patent trolls etc.

Both licenses have no warranty and liability terms.

choosealicense.com/licenses/agpl-3.0 or choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0

<Abo Gemaal el-Folani 👑> Uh oh, you used an ad hominem so your argument is invalid

My genuine reaction: ⚔️🩸⚰️

will i be able to follow the community meeting from my hexchat irc client? or do i need a matrix id?

test

test2

both failed

test3

Message go from IRC->Matrix sometime (at least right now it work)

Other direction (Matrix->IRC) is *not* working

RavFX: I saw your matirx message, some people get thru to IRC while others don't

matrix says they are working on it, maybe by 2024

I did not see my Matrix->IRC test1, isnt IRC supposed to broadcast all message to all the people in the same room?

I did not see any of the message I typed on Matrix

I only saw your "test" message

for days I have missed all of plowsof's messages