My online Armory wallets are 93.3 and my offline wallets are 92.3 (Windows) and 93.2 (Linux). Will these offline wallet versions be compatible with the next release (0.94) and beyond especially with the implementation of SW?
These versions will still be compatible however you should consider upgrading. 0.94 has a new database structure which reduces the databases by a massive amount (from 60+ Gb to a 300 Mb IIRC). 
Topic: Moving forward with Armory - page 2. (Read 18586 times)
My online Armory wallets are 93.3 and my offline wallets are 92.3 (Windows) and 93.2 (Linux). Will these offline wallet versions be compatible with the next release (0.94) and beyond especially with the implementation of SW?
Yes, it will be compatible, at least for now
My online Armory wallets are 93.3 and my offline wallets are 92.3 (Windows) and 93.2 (Linux). Will these offline wallet versions be compatible with the next release (0.94) and beyond especially with the implementation of SW?
So a few weeks ago I emailed the people at the Free Software Foundation seeking some help about the licensing issue here, and they finally responded.
This is what I was told:
To comply with the terms of the license though, any binaries that are published MUST be published under AGPLv3 since it is using the original AGPLv3 code base. Also, the entire project must be licensed under AGPLv3 because it is using AGPLv3 licensed code.
This is what I was told:
Quote
AGPL is a non-revocable license which allows anybody to keep using the code and build on it as long as they comply with the license requirements. ... If the code was published under the (non-revocable) AGPL, then it can continue to be used. ... Assuming the code was published under the AGPL, developers can continue to use it as long as they comply with the AGPL.
This means that any of the code published under AGPLv3 can be used regardless of whether the original developers pulled the original repository. Anyone who has access to that code is allowed to use it so long as they comply with the terms of the license.To comply with the terms of the license though, any binaries that are published MUST be published under AGPLv3 since it is using the original AGPLv3 code base. Also, the entire project must be licensed under AGPLv3 because it is using AGPLv3 licensed code.
Thanks for asking the pros! :-)
I was confused, as to why the removed 0.94 code would be off limits to us. 0.93 and 0.94 were both published under AGPL, the only difference is how long they have been online on a particulary website, github. Which carries no weight here.
Of course we can't force ATI to publish the code again, they can do with their github account as they please.
But if only one copy was saved by anyone out there, he may redistribute and republish under the AGPL again.
It's up to Goatpig to decide if this is a smart move, as ATI might not like that move for whatever reason. But they can't do anything against it except ask us friendly to delete the code.
Ente
I've said it before but I'd love to see goatpig allow the inclusion of a few PRs under Alan's repo. They would've gotten the ball rolling on deterministic builds and some other neat stuff. I'd like to think usage of the code is in the clear legally. But, it's not my project. All I can do is ask politely.
So a few weeks ago I emailed the people at the Free Software Foundation seeking some help about the licensing issue here, and they finally responded.
This is what I was told:
To comply with the terms of the license though, any binaries that are published MUST be published under AGPLv3 since it is using the original AGPLv3 code base. Also, the entire project must be licensed under AGPLv3 because it is using AGPLv3 licensed code.
This is what I was told:
Quote
AGPL is a non-revocable license which allows anybody to keep using the code and build on it as long as they comply with the license requirements. ... If the code was published under the (non-revocable) AGPL, then it can continue to be used. ... Assuming the code was published under the AGPL, developers can continue to use it as long as they comply with the AGPL.
This means that any of the code published under AGPLv3 can be used regardless of whether the original developers pulled the original repository. Anyone who has access to that code is allowed to use it so long as they comply with the terms of the license.To comply with the terms of the license though, any binaries that are published MUST be published under AGPLv3 since it is using the original AGPLv3 code base. Also, the entire project must be licensed under AGPLv3 because it is using AGPLv3 licensed code.
Thanks for asking the pros! :-)
I was confused, as to why the removed 0.94 code would be off limits to us. 0.93 and 0.94 were both published under AGPL, the only difference is how long they have been online on a particulary website, github. Which carries no weight here.
Of course we can't force ATI to publish the code again, they can do with their github account as they please.
But if only one copy was saved by anyone out there, he may redistribute and republish under the AGPL again.
It's up to Goatpig to decide if this is a smart move, as ATI might not like that move for whatever reason. But they can't do anything against it except ask us friendly to delete the code.
Ente
I just quickly want to chime in and also thank all the people that have worked on Armory so far and will do so in the future. I is my favorite wallet and I will follow this new branch closely. What is the best channel to follow about major new features and releases? Is there a donation address for this new OS Armory branch?
The best channel to know more about new releases is here, especially this thread, for now. As said before, no donations accepted by goatpig, at least for now.
I just quickly want to chime in and also thank all the people that have worked on Armory so far and will do so in the future. I is my favorite wallet and I will follow this new branch closely. What is the best channel to follow about major new features and releases? Is there a donation address for this new OS Armory branch?
Who controls bitcoinarmory.com? It appears that the site is back up and different from the old one. It also has the latest versions posted.
Edit: typos
Edit: typos
It's probably Trace.
So a few weeks ago I emailed the people at the Free Software Foundation seeking some help about the licensing issue here, and they finally responded.
This is what I was told:
To comply with the terms of the license though, any binaries that are published MUST be published under AGPLv3 since it is using the original AGPLv3 code base. Also, the entire project must be licensed under AGPLv3 because it is using AGPLv3 licensed code.
This is what I was told:
Quote
AGPL is a non-revocable license which allows anybody to keep using the code and build on it as long as they comply with the license requirements. ... If the code was published under the (non-revocable) AGPL, then it can continue to be used. ... Assuming the code was published under the AGPL, developers can continue to use it as long as they comply with the AGPL.
This means that any of the code published under AGPLv3 can be used regardless of whether the original developers pulled the original repository. Anyone who has access to that code is allowed to use it so long as they comply with the terms of the license.To comply with the terms of the license though, any binaries that are published MUST be published under AGPLv3 since it is using the original AGPLv3 code base. Also, the entire project must be licensed under AGPLv3 because it is using AGPLv3 licensed code.
Who controls bitcoinarmory.com? It appears that the site is back up and different from the old one. It also has the latest versions posted.
Edit: typos
Edit: typos
Domain seems to be still controlled by etotheipi... I wouldn't trust it though.
Does anyone have the sig hashes from the latest version? We can compare them with the ones on the website in order to be sure.
Who controls bitcoinarmory.com? It appears that the site is back up and different from the old one. It also has the latest versions posted.
Edit: typos
Edit: typos
Domain seems to be still controlled by etotheipi... I wouldn't trust it though.
Does anyone have the sig hashes from the latest version? We can compare them with the ones on the website in order to be sure.
Who controls bitcoinarmory.com? It appears that the site is back up and different from the old one. It also has the latest versions posted.
Edit: typos
Edit: typos
Domain seems to be still controlled by etotheipi... I wouldn't trust it though.
Just to be clear, Armory will be SegWit compatible assuming Core isn't jerking us around and actually soft forks in April?
I will support SW, no ETA yet though.
Just to be clear, Armory will be SegWit compatible assuming Core isn't jerking us around and actually soft forks in April?
Echo controls bitcoinarmory.com? It appears that the site is back up and different from the old one. It also has the latest versions posted.
No idea who's doing what on that front.
Alan can't be behind it, or at least I would assume he would let you know about it. It seems conciliatory on the surface, but it's best to be cautious nonetheless. This could be the pre-amble to ATI's own fork (riding on your work initially, it seems).
Echo controls bitcoinarmory.com? It appears that the site is back up and different from the old one. It also has the latest versions posted.
No idea who's doing what on that front.
Who controls bitcoinarmory.com? It appears that the site is back up and different from the old one. It also has the latest versions posted.
Edit: typos
Edit: typos
Am I OK to update core to 0.12.0 and keep using armory until you release a new version?
Yes. 0.93.3 works fine with bitcoin core 0.12 
Am I OK to update core to 0.12.0 and keep using armory until you release a new version?
Once I take care of BIP32/44 I'll add that as well
Jump to: