Show Posts
Slava Gomzin is trying to pull a fast one by removing the original licensing.
https://github.com/LYRA-Block-Lattice/Lyra-Core/commit/ba2df5330dd3a7c80721d16754c14c39ae2f55ff
Slava Gomzin did create the original Lyra code, basically copying Nano. This was done under the Graft project, that did an ICO in 2017. Slava and Dan Itkis thought it would be a good idea to outsource the development to a Ukrainian company called Vakoms. The result was a complete disaster, and Slava, the lead developer for Graft, blames cryptonote protocol. Slava doesn't know C++, he can only dabble in C#, which is the core problem with this "lead developer".
So he went off to copy Nano and created Lyra. Problem was he used Graft ICO funds to finance the development of Lyra. Around nine months later, in October 2019, he comes back announcing Lyra is almost ready, and tries to do a second ICO. He banned half the community in the process, as people became vocal about it, he just banned folk left and right.
This is the real and original Lyra
https://github.com/graft-project/LyraNetwork
He got nothing but backlash from the Graft community, and he quit the project to pursue a new job. He then lost his job a few months later, and returns announcing he will finish Lyra. Problem is, the Graft community wants none of this, they want the Graft MVP concluded before sidetracking this silly project from this incompetent, arrogant and egomaniac pseudo-developer.
He then leaves the Graft channel, and forks Lyra from another community member called Joseph (who had forked original Lyra to do his own thing) and then removes the license to "make it fully open source" - which is just a blatant lie.
Slava developed original Lyra as the founder of Graft Network, who has original Lyra as part of its code. Paid for by Graft ICO funds. This means the intellectual property and copyright belongs to Graft project, not Slava Gomzin the private citizen.
As someone said on Telegram
Quote
Copyright law is very clear on this matter: if you are paid to work on a copyrightable work then that is a work for hire, and copyright belongs to the entity who paid. So Slava's work done while being paid from Graft ICO funds means that work does not belong to Slava, it belongs to the Graft project. It is entirely irrelevant that Slava was a founder of the Graft project, or that he is very angry, or that his feelings are hurt. This is law, not Slava's dream land.
Joseph's work is another matter; since (as I understand it) that was not paid for by the project, the copyright remains with him.
An incompatible* license change requires all copyright holders (not all contributors) to consent. Otherwise the software is being used without license. Slava is a complete fool if he thinks that this is a way to proceed because as this mess is currently unfolding, not only the LYRA project itself but also anyone who uses LYRA code is committing copyright infringement and could be sued by the Graft project.
* - not all license changes are incompatible - for example to switch Graft's license from BSD to GPL would be acceptable because the GPL complies with the requirements of the BSD license.
But what Joseph & Slava have done is remove a copyright statement (which violates the license) and remove a license term (which violates the license), and so it is incompatible.
Joseph's work is another matter; since (as I understand it) that was not paid for by the project, the copyright remains with him.
An incompatible* license change requires all copyright holders (not all contributors) to consent. Otherwise the software is being used without license. Slava is a complete fool if he thinks that this is a way to proceed because as this mess is currently unfolding, not only the LYRA project itself but also anyone who uses LYRA code is committing copyright infringement and could be sued by the Graft project.
* - not all license changes are incompatible - for example to switch Graft's license from BSD to GPL would be acceptable because the GPL complies with the requirements of the BSD license.
But what Joseph & Slava have done is remove a copyright statement (which violates the license) and remove a license term (which violates the license), and so it is incompatible.
