<t​omz_show:matrix.org> Hello to everyone 🤗

<t​omz_show:matrix.org> I’m a Grower and supplier of quality cannabis and psychedelics products like shrooms, DMT, Lsd, Mdma, ketamine, chocolate bars,Meth, cart vapes, buds, wax,crystals,shatter,vapes,heroin,Edibles,distillates, chill pills and high  quality bank notes and (cloned cards) and many more..which have been tested to work perfectly 💯. 

<t​omz_show:matrix.org> Check out products available in store through the shop link 👇👇👇👇👇

<t​omz_show:matrix.org> t.me/+OB1q5MWPBPQyNDc0

<t​omz_show:matrix.org> t.me/+OB1q5MWPBPQyNDc0

<t​omz_show:matrix.org> t.me/+OB1q5MWPBPQyNDc0

<r​ecanman:kernal.eu> plowsof: Diego Salazar

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> Ye

<d​etherminal:monero.social> Creating new accounts is disabled afaik

<d​etherminal:monero.social> > <@smokedkipper:matrix.thisisjoes.site> How to get an account on monero.social?

<d​etherminal:monero.social> Creating a new account is disabled afaik

forced decentralisation, great initiative

<k​ewbit:matrix.org> Who wants a cumbersome licensing task? 😜

<k​ewbit:matrix.org> I’ll start with a question actually to be more productive

<k​ewbit:matrix.org> If all packages used in a project are MIT, Apache 2, AGPLv3, Creative Commons Zero am I good to licence it AGPLv3?

<k​ewbit:matrix.org> I have asked AI but I wasn’t satisfied

<k​ewbit:matrix.org> I mean I guess I have no choice if as least 1 of the packages is AGPLv3, my question is more about compatibility with the rest.

<k​ewbit:matrix.org> Oh I’ve got a BSD 3-Clause in here too.

<k​ewbit:matrix.org> 90% are MIT

<r​ucknium:monero.social> kewbit.org: ^

<k​ewbit:matrix.org> Somewhere to start

<k​ewbit:matrix.org> Actually perhaps I should check licensing before implementing in future haha, I think it’s fine though every package that’s not MIT is replaceable if not compatible, mostly menial features

<k​ewbit:matrix.org> Errr in this document AGPL == to LGPL??

<k​ewbit:matrix.org> Errr in this document AGPL == LGPL??

k​ewbit: MIT is the least restrictive. AGPL is an interesting choice, since it requires anyone _operating customized source code on a network_ to also release those modifications

where as, GPLv3 would allow a private company to make modifications, run the nodes, and not have to tell or show anyone what is backing those changes.

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Only if the product is released publicly afaik (for agpl)

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> AGPL, like GPL is interesting as long as you aren't anon and have funds to go in international trials against people that don't respect it (see Revolt story)

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> if its "internal" than it doesnt have to be shared

hmm, i'll have to check that out the Revolt story. i'm not sure how it would impact a purely open project - wasn't it designed in retaliation to service offerings like AWS's redis and mongo implementations?

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> comfeedhobo yeah in part.

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> ofrnxmr yeah only public facing needs to be shared

it would be interesting to clarify what public facing and offering entail, for the purpose of knowing if it would legally curb chain analytics companies from running a modified version on any of the public nets

i don't even know if what they do falls under "research" or "commercial activity" - i assume the latter since they sell data derived from that "research"

From what I'm reading and recall from trainings - I'm leaning towards AGPL for coin projects.

<f​reeaeronaut:matrix.org> I hear that this often, but the most german people just want to speak there mothertongue. thats why im going to translate it. :)

<k​ewbit:matrix.org> I’ve always been pro AGPLv3 since I learned about it’s ultimately the most productive for a dencentralized project, cause it kind of forces to contribute back while still allowing companies to profit. Makes sense for CCS projects and bounties.

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> I think ultimately AGPLv3 is the normal continuation for any protective license need. Whether it make sense for a CCS project, bounty is up to the coordinator community to decide if works should be protected or permissive, which is another debate as a whole.

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> There has been a long continuation of debate on why RedoxOS decided to go with the MIT license instead of GPLv3 for example

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> and a similar set of benefits have been drawn from MIT: still allowing companies to profit from it. This was a trust<=>adoption tradeoff. MIT means more adoption, which then turns in, with enough trust, contributions upstream. while GPLv3 reduce adoption but overall do not have to worry about trust.

<k​ewbit:matrix.org> You always need to worry about trust

<k​ewbit:matrix.org> You’d be a fool not to I think 🤗

Gingeropolous 1TB MRC upgrade has moved to funding! ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/gingeropolous_1TB_MRC.html

<r​ottenwheel:kernal.eu> Congratulations, gingeropolous gingeropolous. x.com/MoneroSpace/status/1861879644619784377

<r​ottenwheel:kernal.eu> nitter: xcancel.com/MoneroSpace/status/1861879644619784377