silverpill

@RealPappenheimer This issue was discussed at length in monero-community matrix room when proposal was submitted. I guess it's too late to reverse the decision. Even the person who wrote AGPL-licensed modules appears to support the change, although I don't know why they suddenly changed their mind.

@Ferminho @maegul This proposal describes a very simple marketplace, and some things were intentionally left out. However, it is based on Valueflows system which can be used to describe many different economic processes, including planning, production and transportation:

https://www.valueflo.ws/introduction/core/

So developers may use object types and properties defined there if they want to build something more complicated. And social interactions can be represented as standard ActivityPub activities. I think Valueflows and ActivityPub nicely complement each other.

@kowalabearhugs Currently, some parts of Cuprate are licensed under AGPL-3. This means anyone using this code should keep their derivative works as open source and use the same license. The license protects the project from hostile forks and generally serves as a deterrent against privatization of public goods. Lemmy, Mastodon and many other Fediverse servers use AGPL-3 license and it is totally reasonable choice for Cuprate too.

However, when this CCS proposal was discussed some people started to push aggressively against AGPL (going as far as calling it "legal nightmare") and the developer agreed to change the license and even agreed to re-write AGPL-licensed parts of the application if needed.

As I said, this is a mistake, and makes Monero weaker. I think Cuprate may eventually become a dominant implementation because Rust provides a better security and developer experience, and a big chunk of modern cryptographic libraries is being written in Rust (especially in zero-knowledge cryptography). But now any company can safely use Cuprate as part of their infrastructure because it has business-friendly license, create a closed-source fork and hire developers who were previously working on open-source version.

The change of license is basically a signal that corporate interests are more important than interests of ordinary users. As for examples of where this attitude leads, see any cryptocurrency project where companies or "foundations" pay developers for their work and therefore shape the product. Exceptions are rare, and Monero is one of few that relies on donations and crowdfunding.

@Rucknium

>All code produced for this CCS will be licensed under MIT.

The decision to change license from AGPL to MIT was a mistake. And what is particularly concerning, apparently a lot of people are okay with that.

Such attitude led to demise of many other communities where independence was sacrificed for "adoption" and corporate takeover was perceived as a good thing.

@ANONERO

>ANON + NERO leverages the power of the Uniform Resources (UR) standard to transmit Monero’s relatively large payloads via animated QR codes.

Interesting. Are you referring to this? https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/crypto-commons/blob/master/Docs/ur-1-overview.md