Mod protecting a license violation? - page 2.

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: kano on June 10, 2019, 08:56:59 AM

It's not a scam, it's a license violation.

I post about them often, but in this case a mod deleted my posts.

Thus the post here ... as theymos requested me to.

The person didn't directly steal your money but it sounds similar to a contract violation, an attempt to use your work without fulfilling their end of the "deal".

To me it would seem like a possible case for a red trust rating. That's why I suggested to start an accusation thread and see if the community agrees. A red trust label could be more effective than trying to post a rebuttal everywhere where that person posts.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

It's not a scam, it's a license violation.

I post about them often, but in this case a mod deleted my posts.

Thus the post here ... as theymos requested me to.

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: kano on June 10, 2019, 08:41:01 AM

Lulz - none of the forum rules say I can't send a hitman to visit you either ...

Quote from: mprep on July 21, 2014, 12:27:51 PM

8. No threats to inflict bodily harm, death threats.

Quote from: kano on June 10, 2019, 08:41:01 AM

But I (probably) wouldn't even if you do support people breaking the license of the software that I am the 2nd largest contributor to ...

I don't see mikey supporting license violations. Saying that some people do it doesn't mean support. Mods deleting off topic posts doesn't mean they support a specific agenda.

You might want to post a trust rating for efudd and perhaps start a proper scam accusation thread since you seem to have a strong case.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: mikeywith on June 10, 2019, 08:34:16 AM

I think the Mod's job is to "enforce" the "rules" of the forum, which means even if a scammer starts a topic admitting that he is a scammer the mod's "can't" delete that post unless it's off-topic or violating the forum rules, let alone stealing/reselling a piece of code.

As far as i am concern non of the rules states that license violations are not allowed.

There was a similar issue with blissz's firmware where he decided to comply with GPL license and stopped selling his modified version of Cgminer, his thread is still there, it has been there for ages and nothing has been done about it, so I am not sure why do you expect this one to be different.

I am not supporting the act of using the work of other people , modify it and then sell it as your own , but these people know in advance that they are paying for something that is made of an open source but with modifications that they think are "worthy" of the money they pay for it.

Lulz - none of the forum rules say I can't send a hitman to visit you either ...
But I (probably) wouldn't even if you do support people breaking the license of the software that I am the 2nd largest contributor to ...

I guess you have no idea about what is involved in the GPL license ... coz anyone can sell a firmware, but the license requires them to provide the source code to anyone they sell (or give) it to, upon request.

No doubt you, like many of the forum, don't care about licenses and pirating, but alas I will bring it up anyway when it's relevant ...

mikeywith

legendary

Activity: 2394

Merit: 6581

be constructive or S.T.F.U

I think the Mod's job is to "enforce" the "rules" of the forum, which means even if a scammer starts a topic admitting that he is a scammer the mod's "can't" delete that post unless it's off-topic or violating the forum rules, let alone stealing/reselling a piece of code.

As far as i am concern non of the rules states that license violations are not allowed.

There was a similar issue with blissz's firmware where he decided to comply with GPL license and stopped selling his modified version of Cgminer, his thread is still there, it has been there for ages and nothing has been done about it, so I am not sure why do you expect this one to be different.

I am not supporting the act of using the work of other people , modify it and then sell it as your own , but these people know in advance that they are paying for something that is made of an open source but with modifications that they think are "worthy" of the money they pay for it.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: frodocooper on June 10, 2019, 05:21:23 AM

Efudd has an official thread for that firmware that is not self-moderated. Take your complaints there.

Then his post shouldn't be there either ...

frodocooper

sr. member

Activity: 351

Merit: 410

Efudd has an official thread for that firmware that is not self-moderated. Take your complaints there.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Hi, in this thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-is-child-connection-on-cgminer-5151878

the last undeleted reply appears to be a license violation of cgminer - and it's been merited by a mod

So I replied with the quote below, which a mod has deleted twice then locked the thread.

I'm not sure if it is frodcooper who deleted it twice and locked the thread, but he merited the last post

Seriously? Not allowing me to reply to that post with a request for the source code ... since his statement is false about his GPL violation ...

Quote from: efudd on June 09, 2019, 01:58:15 AM

Quote from: kano on June 08, 2019, 07:05:38 PM

No non-original firmware is trusted.

None of them prove that their firmware finds blocks before people use it.

Most of them have hacks in them to take hashes.

Almost all of them violate the cgminer license so cannot be trusted.

...
I can't speak to other folk's work, but mine doesn't have "hacks in them" to take hashes; the functionality is documented and I provide the user with 3 different methods of using the firmware, all with full functionality. Paid license, sponsor paid license (i.e., use it on specific pool(s), it acts as a paid license with full funcionality), and a dev-fee supported mode (which, I guess could be 'taking hashes'), depending on your perspective... each of these modes exist at the request of portions of the user base.

Mine also does not violate the GPL for a variety of reasons, the simplest of which is that I do not modify cgminer on-disk and follow the proper linking _recommendations_ in the GPL FAQ in terms of how my additive functionality is implemented.
...

You CAN NOT add or modify #xnsub in a firmware without modifying the cgminer code.
Also, all bitmain miners are built off the cgminer code.

Your Z9_2.3.tar.gz uses a version of cgminer in it - 4.9.0 - I've downloaded it and checked.
You've stated

Quote

Change log for version 2.2:
Adds Support for Nicehash (yay!)
Adds proper #xnsub support

Where is the source code to your miner running in your firmware?
That is mandatory if I request it, since I downloaded your binary.

Hopefully frodocooper didn't merit someone for breaking the cgminer license ... ... ...

Topic: Mod protecting a license violation? - page 2. (Read 643 times)