00:10:50 Just tell us your original problem instead of beating around the bush 00:11:12 I think the biggest issue with the report is that it is long and trails off into things unrelated to the milestone 00:11:16 why can’t the rules be clear and stand on their own? 00:11:39 https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/489#note_26721 py_verse: 00:12:05 Because they were written in 1992 00:12:35 are developers allowed to develop locally until they publish and request payment for milestones? should have a clear answer 00:12:38 Well i agree but did you just wake up and Choose to check if CCS rules are flawed or not? 00:12:39 Or you were trying to do something but you were afraid that rules might restrict you 00:13:57 > <@woodser:monero.social> why can’t the rules be clear and stand on their own? 00:13:59 Well i agree but did you just wake up and Choose to check if CCS rules are flawed or not? 00:14:01 Or you were trying to do something but you were afraid that ccs rules might restrict you 00:14:03 Yes 00:14:10 ofrnxmr it depends how? 00:17:44 Any milestone being claimed should have source fully available 00:18:03 If the milestone is code 00:19:05 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 00:23:06 The main thing is that the code for the milestone is not in violation of the code. 00:23:07 Rule 4 "mule be permissively licensed" does not dictate what license must be used 00:24:58 This is Agplv3 iirc, so its required that modifications are made pu lic 00:25:06 public* 00:25:51 ofrnxmr gotcha 00:25:53 makes sense 00:27:24 if you dont release the software publicly, you (shouldnt afaict) have to release source code. But releasing publicly must include source 00:27:56 I think the drama here is less about the current milestone, and more about the breach of the license a couple weeks back 00:30:07 ofrnxmr i don't know which milestone / project you're referring to. nor breach. 00:30:35 https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/489#note_26721 00:31:11 This project. And a couple weeks ago, beta binaries were pushed out and advertised to the public, but didn't have accompanying source code 00:32:25 WTF I just had to read? How do you suppose to publish the code before you've developed it, you, stupid retard?! 00:32:27 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!!!! ☠️ 00:32:55 The binaries were pulled, instead of releasing the source. 00:32:57 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 00:33:39 ofrnxmr: eventually both code and bins were released? because i checked a few days ago and found everything i was looking for 00:34:04 No, the code wasnt afaik 00:34:13 which component? 00:34:37 yeah i suspected it was this project 00:34:43 The app itself 00:34:53 gotcha 00:36:11 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 00:37:13 its my OPINION that if there is a holdup, that is why 00:38:24 To directly answer woodser- yes tou can dev in private. You only need to release code when you release products or request milestones 00:39:58 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 00:40:35 (the code for the milestone has been published under a permissive license) 00:40:43 Pulling the binaries doesnt put you back in compliance with agplv3 afaict 00:41:24 Its not the milestone that is blocking, its the ccs itself (the binary release violating the license) 00:44:59 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 00:45:34 "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. 🤷‍♂️ 00:47:18 good framing. looks like we need to look into the wording of agplv3 00:47:32 also curious that the guy doesn't just release the source at this point 00:47:34 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 00:47:41 and claim 2 milestones instead of 1 01:20:34 plow sof is sleeping :) 01:21:10 i think the quickest solution to this is kewbit release the app source. 01:22:20 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 01:23:20 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. 01:24:30 the released dart library source is applying agplv3, if not monerod woodser 01:51:39 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? 02:07:36 <321bob321:monero.social> Maybe wait for plowsof and luigi 02:50:20 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 02:52:53 err sorry, that's pub.dev/packages/haveno 02:53:36 and promising work in pub.dev/packages/i2p as well 04:11:26 feel free to check out the source too https://github.com/KewbitXMR/flutter_haveno 04:13:03 see if you can spot I problem I guess? 04:21:38 Good luck reversing a flutter app to see if it matches source/doesn't contain malware :^) 04:21:55 It's a pain in the ass :))) how convenient 04:24:28 I cant, it's not longer available, I wasn't sure why the first milestone wasn't paid it was instead refused despite being completed and open sourced and also licences with like the most copyleft licence there is .. AGPLv3 there is literally nothing more I could have done for the milestone 04:26:15 it is sad for sure, but of course most of this is a ploy now because obviously I was going to not be happy about it all these random ppl popping out of the shadows suddengly to hate 04:28:29 What are you talking about? Since this is your CCS, it wasn't you who released proprietary binaries? 04:29:27 Sure, did I specifically ask you to download them though? 04:30:03 Should I just magic CI / CD pipeines out of thin air instantly ready for you all for free? 04:30:57 sorry I didn't do more than build an entire app for haveno, ill keep your comment in mind for next time 04:31:36 ??? You're either malicious or a contractor from hell 04:31:41 ahh wait, obviouly, its not going to happen again 04:31:46 Must be! 04:32:05 There are no logical explainations for any of it of course 04:32:15 its just a contractor from hell :) 04:32:38 Who's alt is this :P 04:33:21 Let me get this right. For one moment you said it is open source and AGPLv3 licensed. Someone else says it was proprietary binaries. All the while my understanding is that there were some binaries somewhere, that got pulled. So... when did the source code become available, before or after binaries were public? 04:33:50 The proprietary binaries line throws me off the woods, what is it? 😂 04:35:10 The honest truth is I had never licensed a piece of software ever but I'm now very conscious of licensing 04:35:18 It was explained to you above. You broke the policy of your own license (your dependencies' licenses too) and the CCS policy. Sheer stupidity if you don't understand what is wrong. 04:36:04 yes I am aware, I accepted it already no need to reiterate, ultimate everyones going to be mad the ploy didnt work on me 04:36:25 im just glad I reserved the builds now 04:36:34 was a smart move in the end 04:36:46 when true colors came out 04:36:58 Of yourself I assume 04:37:05 (hopefully not) 04:37:09 thats what I've taken solace in basically 04:37:35 I'm still waiting for an answer! 😂 04:37:48 lol I've worked 4 months of honet work on this 04:39:12 its just funny all of this, starts pretty much immediately after I tell diego I jusrt dont trust him, which I dont he gave me then an ultimatum which I refused, i'm not sure why but there it is. 04:39:22 Okay, but don't mix me with the other retards, I'm legitimately asking a question in there, no hidden agenda or prosecution lol. 04:39:31 all the parrots come out 04:39:45 Question is simple... Since when is the AGPLv3 source code you mention available? Before or after binaries? 04:39:51 well you'v obiiously been told some nonsence because you've joined in with it 04:40:06 No, retard. 04:40:19 I'm not going to ask the question a third time. 🤷‍♂️ 04:40:21 well it depends retard, for apks there is a workflow in github 04:40:48 That's for building, you autistic cunt loo. 04:40:55 so they built every time, and it was probably a mix and match on the others 04:41:11 haha 04:41:13 That's for building, you autistic cunt lol. 04:41:15 ok now im enjoying this 04:41:37 what a major U turn you guys have pulled off 04:41:39 And he still has not answered the question! 04:42:33 What ultimatum? Holy shit 😂. 04:42:57 woodser pretty much being the only one not influenced by any of this shit clearly 04:43:02 mm? 04:43:05 I'm assuming your proactive avoidance of the question means the code only became available after you pulled the binaries? 04:43:09 yeah its hilarious 04:43:33 you've got your pretty corrupt team pretty much it seems 04:43:35 serhack if you're around shoot me a message 04:43:42 you only made a big deal of these binaries at the end 04:43:59 smart choice but not smart enough clearly 04:44:13 ??? Siren what is he on about? 04:44:23 I have no idea 04:44:27 Lol, I'm done trying to have a conversation with him. 04:44:43 :D 04:45:22 You are incorrect. The CCS proposal will be terminated because we've been made aware of additional code that is being withheld from public view and correct licensing until payout as leverage for the payouts to be made. This is not acceptable and rule 4 of the CCS states all code must be FOSS'd at all times at all stages. 04:46:06 not really , your reqest for the source was terminates because I saw through your utter shit 04:46:09 not really , your reqest for the source was terminated because I saw through your utter shit 04:46:11 This has been explained to you thoroughly. There is no corruption here. It's laughable that asking people who are using our system to follow the system's rules is being called 'corruption' 04:46:50 it sure feels like it after spending 4 months building an app 04:46:56 yeah 04:47:15 what else can explain this behaviour other than a ploy 04:47:26 This can https://ccs.getmonero.org/what-is-ccs/ 04:47:33 the feed back for ages was generally positive 04:47:38 If you mean our behavior 04:47:43 the "ultimatum" in question is that he follows the rules and FOSS everything immediately or the proposal can't continue. Thems the rules. 04:47:54 you then switched the agenda very quick 04:48:10 <321bob321:monero.social> Foss it or toss it 04:48:24 Toss it for sure 04:48:49 There is no way on earth I am giving it out 04:48:51 > I dont really have it in me to finish this for now. Dealing with some personal issues. 04:48:53 > 04:48:55 > This project has also attracted attention of some nasty people I would rather not have messaging me, apologies for the obscurity. Closed until firther notice 04:48:57 > 04:48:59 > Kewbit 04:49:01 The binaries thing is a secondary issue, and honestly not worth talking about much imo. The larger issue is that there is unreleased, non-public code that is being used as leverage. 04:49:03 the idea has completely gone with the wind 04:49:05 like completely 04:49:07 https://github.com/KewbitXMR/haveno-app 04:49:09 fireice pulled this back in the day to a lesser degree (at least that code was "source available" which led to the rule in the first place, if you all recall 04:49:23 fireice pulled this back in the day to a lesser degree (at least that code was "source available") which led to the rule in the first place, if you all recall 04:49:35 yeah fork it , it's like 1% of the project lol 04:50:08 I wasn't aware of this issue until today when it was discussed with me, at which point I contacted you to clear the situation up. The situation was made clear, and the options presented. You chose to not FOSS, so the proposal will not move forward. 04:50:09 I'm pointing out to what the readme says, that's it. 04:50:16 Case in point 04:50:33 yeah made clear quite a while ago 04:50:48 when we chatted! 04:51:34 Indeed. Everything is clear to me, don't worry. Just defending our side against the whining and accusations. 04:51:47 You're free to whine here (to a point), and I'm free to present my side of the story just as much. 04:51:55 I will share the news actually on about this 04:52:09 I've decided it's that big enough of a scam 04:52:33 I have a question, did you or did you not read the rules before you made the proposal? 04:52:59 Though I think cancelling the CCS right away might not be the right choice here. I suggest inspecting what was delivered (if the mistake was corrected already and the source is available) and if it's good just let this be a warning for this time. 04:53:53 Because an exception was made for a movie proposal before. Again on the licence rule. 04:53:55 I appreciate having seen everyone for who they are today, I have after all entered a world of criminals, should not have been so niave! or such an austic cunt I think as rotten said 04:54:17 I spoke with both luigi and plowsof, after my discussion with kewbit and presented them options. It's been decided that we are sticking to the rules of the CCS and not bending them. Those rules have been around for years, and they are very clear. 04:54:40 I can make rule 4 in all caps for future proposers :) 04:54:51 Oh fuck the licence rule, I wish I had been malicious now, would have got a bargain for my buck, but sadly you got it wrong this time and fucked it up for yourrself 04:54:53 You still haven't answered the question. Did you or did you not read the rules before you made the proposal? 04:55:55 You have nobody to be mad at except yourself for either not reading or not abiding by the clearly stated rules in the CCS. 04:56:04 Yes I did, I had broke one of the rules, so it is indeed my fault, I'm not fussed about the money, I'm just glad you didnt manage to concience. me to hand over the surce with all that shit you tried on me 04:56:32 Yes I did, I had broke one of the rules, so it is indeed my fault, I'm not fussed about the money, I'm just glad you didnt manage to convince me to hand over the source with all that shit you tried on me 04:56:35 Feel free to upload the entire chat into a pastebin and share here. I have nothing to hide and stand by everything I said in our discussion. 04:56:50 You do actually 04:57:08 You pretty much started the conversatiion with a polite threat, right off the bat 04:57:46 The way you approached me seemed reasonable at first 04:58:01 I'm sure you were being cautious for that purpose 04:58:51 You did do a relatively 'good job' of making yourself look goood until the end tho 04:59:24 Do you mind if I share the entire conversation then? 04:59:33 if that's your way of shoftening your own blow sure 04:59:48 Do as you please buddy 04:59:49 Diego Salazar: milestone are paid on an individual basis, before other milestones are completed, no? 05:00:02 and thanks again for ruining a community project 05:00:21 because you cannot be trusted, you're a lair. 05:00:39 And lugi1111 05:00:40 I mean what I said, I entered the conversation with the intention to learn and with an incomplete story given by several people. Over the course of our conversation I learned what was going on, and I adjusted my stances. 05:00:41 There the fuck that 2000xmr bro 05:00:49 Of was it lost buddy 05:00:55 No woodser. Rule 4 says: All work must be licensed permissively at all stages of the proposal. There is no time where your work can be licensed under a restrictive license (even as you're working on it). Your proposal will be terminated if this is not remedied. 05:01:06 sorry to here that the community lost about 200k foucking grande to your shit 05:01:23 how did fluffy and binarybyte not see through this shit 05:02:09 are they in this shit or IRC 05:02:17 imma get at least one of them 05:02:42 get some fucking rational conversation going for a at least a little while 05:03:00 luigi1111: you're being summoned. luigi1111 too 05:03:14 binaryFate: binaryfate 05:03:17 No I am not summoning luigi111 ih'es fucking in on it 05:03:19 sadly 05:03:29 Diego Salazar: my question is not in regards to licensing, but in regards to milestones being completed sequentially. they’re paid out before subsequent milestones are released, no? 05:03:34 fluffypony isn't part of the core team anymore 05:03:59 so you've basically corrupt the entire community ecosystem and fucked the whole coin then 05:04:09 silently stealing money over the years 05:04:28 literally from people in these chats 05:04:30 mugs 05:04:33 especially luigi1111 05:04:48 This would be the case, until it was learned that there is more code for other milestones that has not been FOSS'd SPECIFICALLY to use as a hedge for receiving payouts. This is not acceptable, and not a game we're interested in paying. 05:04:52 crpyto attack on the general fund 05:04:56 my ass! 05:05:05 me personally? goodness I'm good then. 05:05:27 the community need to figure out SOME kind of way of ousting luigi1111 and Diego out like seriously 05:05:29 and fast 05:05:57 I'm hopeful they dont have the getmonero.org domain in their possession 05:06:01 Diego Salazar: kewbit: I suggest cooling off for now because the discussion isn't constructive and let the community vote the next meeting. 05:06:29 I don’t see how that’s relevant to completing milestones with a permissive license. developers are free to publish subsequent milestones when they are ready, no? 05:06:36 not at all, I will literally keep at it until you're seen for your true fucking colours dude 05:06:41 I am completely cool and in control of myself, but I am happy to disengage. 05:06:43 kewbit may I have a moment please? 05:07:12 Machiavellian and cheating, whereeverr you feel like you've got a shot at it you take it 05:07:26