<c​larck__amberson:matrix.org> Just tell us your original problem instead of beating around the bush

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> I think the biggest issue with the report is that it is long and trails off into things unrelated to the milestone

<w​oodser:monero.social> why can’t the rules be clear and stand on their own?

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/c…als/-/merge_requests/489#note_26721 py_verse:

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Because they were written in 1992

<w​oodser:monero.social> are developers allowed to develop locally until they publish and request payment for milestones? should have a clear answer

<c​larck__amberson:matrix.org> Well i agree but did you just wake up and Choose to check if CCS rules are flawed or not?

<c​larck__amberson:matrix.org> Or you were trying to do something but you were afraid that rules might restrict you

<c​larck__amberson:matrix.org> > <@woodser:monero.social> why can’t the rules be clear and stand on their own?

<c​larck__amberson:matrix.org> Well i agree but did you just wake up and Choose to check if CCS rules are flawed or not?

<c​larck__amberson:matrix.org> Or you were trying to do something but you were afraid that ccs rules might restrict you

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Yes

ofrnxmr it depends how?

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Any milestone being claimed should have source fully available

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> If the milestone is code

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> If the milestone is not code, like "i need $ to submit to app store", we dont expect the dev to release their apple app store keys

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> The main thing is that the code for the milestone is not in violation of the code.

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Rule 4 "mule be permissively licensed" does not dictate what license must be used

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> This is Agplv3 iirc, so its required that modifications are made pu lic

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> public*

ofrnxmr gotcha

makes sense

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> if you dont release the software publicly, you (shouldnt afaict) have to release source code. But releasing publicly must include source

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> I think the drama here is less about the current milestone, and more about the breach of the license a couple weeks back

ofrnxmr i don't know which milestone / project you're referring to. nor breach.

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/c…als/-/merge_requests/489#note_26721

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> This project. And a couple weeks ago, beta binaries were pushed out and advertised to the public, but didn't have accompanying source code

<p​ointoffailure:monero.social> WTF I just had to read? How do you suppose to publish the code before you've developed it, you, stupid retard?!

<p​ointoffailure:monero.social> The rule says that you cannot restrictively __license__ the code during the development and don't even try to do it locally with your dirty little hands, or they will FUCKING KILL YOU!!!! ☠️

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> The binaries were pulled, instead of releasing the source.

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> had the binaries never been released, i dont think we'd have this drama right now. But the release was a breach of the license (and our rule). Pulling the binaries means were jb compliance with the rule, but not with agplv3

ofrnxmr: eventually both code and bins were released? because i checked a few days ago and found everything i was looking for

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> No, the code wasnt afaik

which component?

yeah i suspected it was this project

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> The app itself

gotcha

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> You can share bins privately within your org w/o source, but cannot release publicly. Again, i think were causing drama over a mistake, but its hard to "unsee" things that were seen

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> its my OPINION that if there is a holdup, that is why

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> To directly answer woodser- yes tou can dev in private. You only need to release code when you release products or request milestones

<w​oodser:monero.social> the binaries were pulled instead of publishing the code. my understanding is the milestone payout is now being withheld due to breach of rules, which were rectified, so I wanted to clarify the rules

<w​oodser:monero.social> (the code for the milestone has been published under a permissive license)

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Pulling the binaries doesnt put you back in compliance with agplv3 afaict

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Its not the milestone that is blocking, its the ccs itself (the binary release violating the license)

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> afaict, the milestone is properly sourced and eligible for release. Only thing in the way is the lack of source for the binary the was released. Maybe i'm wrong, but thats what this looks like to me

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> "made a mistake. Wont happen again" would usually suffice, but maybe precedent is being set ? I _assume_ that releasing source for the / a binary would rectify any concerns. 🤷‍♂️

good framing. looks like we need to look into the wording of agplv3

also curious that the guy doesn't just release the source at this point

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Its not like we have any idea what that bin was built out of, so we cant prove any source release matches the bin.. probably just drawing a hard line about importance of licenses when it comes to spending money that was essentially earmarked and not raised

and claim 2 milestones instead of 1

plow sof is sleeping :)

i think the quickest solution to this is kewbit release the app source.

i don't think anyone here has ever seen ccs not pay a person that has met all expectations, so since there is clearly source available, it should be released, without fear of not being compensated for it

reading the agplv3, it very clearly is meant to dictate that source always be released. ccs mandates that the license be followed. therefore the source has to be released.

the released dart library source is applying agplv3, if not monerod woodser

<w​oodser:monero.social> it was a mistake to publish the preview binaries and they were pulled down. now payments for different milestones are being withheld. am I understanding that his CCS proposal is effectively terminated because of this mistake, unless the source code to those unpublished binaries is released?

<3​21bob321:monero.social> Maybe wait for plowsof and luigi

I thought the source *was* available, but will have to recheck more closely if the source that's available matches the bins I haven't deleted :P there's pub.dev/haveno published as well

err sorry, that's pub.dev/packages/haveno

and promising work in pub.dev/packages/i2p as well