4 ms·

that hasn't been updated in NINE MONTHS this was a scam they got a bunch of people to write the software for them and then took it closed source shame on the

that hasn't been updated in NINE MONTHS this was a scam they got a bunch of people to write the software for them and then took it closed source shame on them

1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago
I understand your point of view, but isn't that sort of the spirit of open source software? To take it and build something with it. I mean, they didn't close the repo, it's still up there, they just made the decision to not contribute back as they decided to build a business around it. Others can too.
- maaku 13y ago
  Open source, yes. Free software, no. Sadly this was open source, not free.
  - wcoenen 13y ago
    Free software typically doesn't force you to share changes either, as long as you don't distribute the binaries. Patching GPL code and using it in a web application without ever releasing the source is perfectly fine. The Affero GPL was designed to force the release of source even in that case. That's the only license I know which has that property though.
    - maaku 13y ago
      Free software != GPL. One could argue that the Affero GPL represents a continuation of the ideals which gave birth to the GPL, now that more and more applications have moved to being network services (something less common in 80's).
codys 13y ago
Which is the reason for the AGPL license. Those people contributed their code under the MIT license. This is absolutely allowed.
- makomk 13y ago
  It's legal, but that certainly doesn't mean it's ethical or that it inspires trust.
marcbarbosa 13y ago
I don't think it's a scam. According to kevin-buttercoin comment a month ago, they are working on Scala based version, and it will be opensourced. Source: https://github.com/buttercoin/buttercoin/issues/65 https://github.com/buttercoin/buttercoin/issues/65
- 1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago
  I've actually talked with Kevin before, they do seem to care about open-source & security & scalability. I mean, from what we talked about, I got the sense they do. But for them, I think things are moving fast, and it's hard to please everyone, all the time, especially when you need to prioritize the business. It seems they care about open-source as a reassurance to security. And I think they do want to give back to the community.
MrBlue 13y ago
They also took a lot of donations in BTC which they never returned after pivoting their project to a private closed source solution. Shame on them for sure.
- Raphael 13y ago
  Starting off on the wrong foot.
  - psykovsky 13y ago
    With all the money they already have on the bank I suspect they don't agree with you.
gfarley 13y ago
I remember when this project was in hyper-drive on freenode. They were working 18 hour days the first week and made a lot of grand promises. I had doubts as to whether it could last considering how they rebuffed any and everyone who criticized the project's choice of programming language. Time will tell how legit this is

that hasn't been updated in NINE MONTHS this was a scam they got a bunch of people to write the software for them and then took it closed source shame on them

1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago

I understand your point of view, but isn't that sort of the spirit of open source software? To take it and build something with it. I mean, they didn't close the repo, it's still up there, they just made the decision to not contribute back as they decided to build a business around it. Others can too.

maaku 13y ago
Open source, yes. Free software, no. Sadly this was open source, not free.
- wcoenen 13y ago
  Free software typically doesn't force you to share changes either, as long as you don't distribute the binaries. Patching GPL code and using it in a web application without ever releasing the source is perfectly fine. The Affero GPL was designed to force the release of source even in that case. That's the only license I know which has that property though.
  - maaku 13y ago
    Free software != GPL. One could argue that the Affero GPL represents a continuation of the ideals which gave birth to the GPL, now that more and more applications have moved to being network services (something less common in 80's).

codys 13y ago

Which is the reason for the AGPL license. Those people contributed their code under the MIT license. This is absolutely allowed.

makomk 13y ago
It's legal, but that certainly doesn't mean it's ethical or that it inspires trust.

marcbarbosa 13y ago

I don't think it's a scam. According to kevin-buttercoin comment a month ago, they are working on Scala based version, and it will be opensourced. Source: https://github.com/buttercoin/buttercoin/issues/65 https://github.com/buttercoin/buttercoin/issues/65

1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago
I've actually talked with Kevin before, they do seem to care about open-source & security & scalability. I mean, from what we talked about, I got the sense they do. But for them, I think things are moving fast, and it's hard to please everyone, all the time, especially when you need to prioritize the business. It seems they care about open-source as a reassurance to security. And I think they do want to give back to the community.

MrBlue 13y ago

They also took a lot of donations in BTC which they never returned after pivoting their project to a private closed source solution. Shame on them for sure.

Raphael 13y ago
Starting off on the wrong foot.
- psykovsky 13y ago
  With all the money they already have on the bank I suspect they don't agree with you.

gfarley 13y ago

I remember when this project was in hyper-drive on freenode. They were working 18 hour days the first week and made a lot of grand promises. I had doubts as to whether it could last considering how they rebuffed any and everyone who criticized the project's choice of programming language. Time will tell how legit this is