I'm quite surprised.
There was a time I had a certain amount of respect towards Dean but we're way past those times. I have no idea what reason Dean even has to be dishonest about anything like this. Especially if it all boils down to just 2 BTC.
You know we were under the opinion, wrongly, that we were able to use that code after discussing it with RHavar.
This is absolutely ridiculous of you to drag me into this. I neither said nor implied any such thing. I would normally be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest maybe you misunderstood me, but we only spoke about it
after you launched with pirated software.
But I do encourage you to share anything I said that might have given you a different impression. Just make sure you include enough context, like how you first started off with
"we didn't just copy it but used reference" before then later admitting you were using a minified verbatim copy of bustabit (even including some pointless bustabit debug lines) both on the client and server, and asked about known problems or exploits in the specific version you're running. So there goes the "accidental infringement" defence. Ooops.
But reviewing our conversation, my advice was to follow the terms of the AGPLv3 version (releasing modified source code) and save you paying the small licensing fee. So please don't act like you were led astray (and not to mention: I'm not a lawyer or have any rights to the source code you're using) so my opinion is rather irrelevant anyway.
There is not any Bustabit code in the relaunched version and we even use different libraries for graphing.
That's obviously nonsense. Let's not pretend you reimplemented the entire thing in a couple days. It's exactly the same and has literally exactly the same rendering quirks and bugs that it did before. I can see you made a few obvious changes (stripped the debug lines, changed <canvas> to <svg> changed the fonts, stripped the noise function, renamed "GAME_TICK" to "CRASH_GAME_TICK" but as the original author to most of the code you're running, it's rather obvious you just spent a couple days obfuscating your previous blatant copyright infringement.
It's like you got a copy of a Harry Potter book, and find-and-replaced most of the characters and places names. Pretending it's your work is insulting.
And I'm going to be honest, I personally don't really care about copyright infringement (I pretty much pirate every movie I watch), but I do very much value honesty -- and find this whole situation extremely concerning.
And on that note, I'm not sure what's a bigger red-flag: That you raised millions of dollars with an ICO to supposedly help pay development, and then would rip Dan off for a rather insignificant once-off 2 bitcoin licensing fee. Or that you'd rather tarnish your brand and reputation over said fee.
I know Daniel said he's too busy to care, but I don't think what you're doing is fair. I intend on leaving negative trust, and petitioning the Crypto Gambling Foundation to revoke your membership, unless you can do the right thing and pay what is owed (and ideally provide a proof-of-solvency to show you are in the position to complete the terms of the buy-back program that your ICO tokens require).
In my opinion you're being far too reasonable regarding this if this all is true. Simply paying the 2 BTC shouldn't cut it, lol.
Show Posts
