ToTheMoon.is -- Moneypot in space

[dooglus]

I've left you negative trust linked to this post, and will remove it if you take steps to comply with the code's license.

Which is sad, considering he did make the game look very slick.

Yes, it looks good.

But if you can't trust him to follow the terms of the license, how can you trust him with your bitcoins?

Maybe one day he'll be "considering" whether to let you withdraw them or not. It hasn't even been 24 hours yet, and maybe he's going to decide not to steal them, just give him time to decide...

[1715672783]

1715672783

[1715672783]

1715672783

[1715672783]

1715672783

[1715672783]

1715672783

[1715672783]

1715672783

[blockage]

CHAPEAU!

I had to google it:

Chapeau

The literal word comes from the French, and it means 'hat'.

Aside from meaning 'hat' it is also used when giving someone respect, a short way of saying 'hat off' or 'I'm so impressed, I take my hat off'.

I thought anglophone Canadians get at least basic french in school. Oh wait, or are you not really Canadian?

[elm]

What you are doing here is clearly not ok, and I feel slighted by the whole thing. You have taken my code, which was made available to you under the condition that all changes must be shared alike in the same fashion -- and have violated this agreement, and ignored my attempts to have it remedied.

I have deep respect for your contribution, and I am considering it. For now I'm holding of since you're selling it yourself and I'm very uncertain about the new owners. Please allow me this time (it's not even 24 hours online yet).

[...]

And let me say once more that I haven't ruled out open sourcing the site or parts of it.

You don't get to decide whether to "open source" it or not. The project is already open sourced. You get to either share your changes or be in violation of the license you accepted by using the code.

I've left you negative trust linked to this post, and will remove it if you take steps to comply with the code's license.

Which is sad, considering he did make the game look very slick.

he really made a good job. but IMHO he is stupid not to comply with the code's license

[dooglus]

I thought anglophone Canadians get at least basic french in school. Oh wait, or are you not really Canadian?

They do, but no, I'm not Canadian. I studied 3 years of French in school, and could probably have told you that 'chapeau' meant 'hat' if forced to guess, but even then I wouldn't have made the leap to the lifting of the hat as a sign of respect. I was thinking it was more likely a typo.

[Tothemoonguy]

Guys I've hear you, it is clear that making it open source is the thing to do. I am not on github to develop this and truth is I never read the license. I hear Eric was selling so I figure that it was acceptable to re-build it with added improvements since it was open-source. I downloaded it and started working.

So when I launched last night I didn't think at all about this and was just excited to have launched it. But I never meant to be portrayed as a thief, I thought I love this game, this is open-source and this can be improved a lot, so lets do it!

Then this license accusation came up which I was totally not prepared for. I want to research this more and figure out how this works, I have never contributed to open-source before this point, only used it.
I felt attacked and injust as I put a lot of work in this redesign, I understand also Eric felt attacked and injust by me cause he put even more work into it and i didnt have the license. I did not mean any harm but only wanting to create something nice on top of his concept, i wouldnt even have done it if he didnt sell. From his code its clear that you're a good developer (just dont use coinbase)

So I checked the last hour about this and I can't do nothing but agree with everyone who asked to open-source this, as everyone who said it was in the license was right, but please regard that i never said anyone of you was wrong, i am just not used to it.

So without further ado, here is the link for anyone interested to download tothemoon: https://mega.co.nz/#!1wcETIzR!3uSNulBm2ryM--oQqYFhCijWondvj4ZKb3Pf5cNgV7E
I will keep this up to date when new changes are made

I release it under the same license as Moneypot: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

[Tothemoonguy]

Thanks Eric, i will put it in the faq soon together with the license and will also add SSL to the site soon.

[RoooooR]

I'm quite sure ToTheMoon will be go to to the moon after your this right move.

[dooglus]

Guys I've hear you, it is clear that making it open source is the thing to do. I am not on github to develop this and truth is I never read the license.

[...]

I release it under the same license as Moneypot: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

You don't get to make it open source. It was already open source when you got it, and you can't "un-open source" it.

You also don't get to choose how to license it. The existing license tells you that your fork is under the same license as the original.

Incidentally, it's well worth learning how to use some kind of source control. git is a good one to use, and github is a decent place to host your git repository. Having to upload the whole thing to mega each time you make any change to the site will get tiresome very quickly. git allows you to upload just the changes, automatically, and keep the same URL.

[Tothemoonguy]

Guys I've hear you, it is clear that making it open source is the thing to do. I am not on github to develop this and truth is I never read the license.

[...]

I release it under the same license as Moneypot: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

You don't get to make it open source. It was already open source when you got it, and you can't "un-open source" it.

You also don't get to choose how to license it. The existing license tells you that your fork is under the same license as the original.

Incidentally, it's well worth learning how to use some kind of source control. git is a good one to use, and github is a decent place to host your git repository. Having to upload the whole thing to mega each time you make any change to the site will get tiresome very quickly. git allows you to upload just the changes, automatically, and keep the same URL.

I am familiar with git, but I can say im not a fan of github, but i can look at others for this purpose.

Yes im sorry that is my intend, same license.

[banklunjo]

When it"s back

[s1ng]

Nice graph do you have.
But This site must be copy from moneypot (since OP get red trust from dooglus)

This is bad for your bussiness,
Need something that provide this site is not copied from moneypot

Good luck for you

[Tothemoonguy]

Nice graph do you have.
But This site must be copy from moneypot (since OP get red trust from dooglus)

This is bad for you bussiness,
Need something that provide this site is not copied from moneypot

Good luck for you

i hope he removes this since i think i dont break any license rules anymore, i didnt have it open source and should have

[bitjamz]

what a difference day and night, affiliate program would be cool on this site

[dooglus]

i hope he removes this since i think i dont break any license rules anymore, i didnt have it open source and should have

Where's the link to the source code? I can't find it.

[bitjamz]

https://mega.co.nz/#!1wcETIzR!3uSNulBm2ryM--oQqYFhCijWondvj4ZKb3Pf5cNgV7E  = http://tothemoon.is

https://github.com/moneypot/webserver = moneypot

[m19]

i hope he removes this since i think i dont break any license rules anymore, i didnt have it open source and should have

Where's the link to the source code? I can't find it.

So without further ado, here is the link for anyone interested to download tothemoon: https://mega.co.nz/#!1wcETIzR!3uSNulBm2ryM--oQqYFhCijWondvj4ZKb3Pf5cNgV7E
I will keep this up to date when new changes are made

I release it under the same license as Moneypot: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

I have downloaded it in a sandbox environment and it appears to be legit. I could put it on GitHub if you want? Or BitBucket.

edit: It seems you have seen the Mega link before. He is allowed to release the code in anyway he want, since the Mega link contains his source code I think his negative trust should be removed. Even though Mega is not the most friendly way to do so.

edit2: I got the source up and running

[dooglus]

edit: It seems you have seen the Mega link before. He is allowed to release the code in anyway he want, since the Mega link contains his source code I think his negative trust should be removed. Even though Mega is not the most friendly way to do so.

I saw the Mega link in this thread, but not on his site.

From the license:

[...] if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source [...]

[m19]

edit: It seems you have seen the Mega link before. He is allowed to release the code in anyway he want, since the Mega link contains his source code I think his negative trust should be removed. Even though Mega is not the most friendly way to do so.

I saw the Mega link in this thread, but not on his site.

From the license:

[...] if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source [...]

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if that means he should link the source code on the website itself. He technically does offer to access the Corresponding Source by posting a Mega link here.

I'll keep my distance on this regarding the license, I still believe this was an honest mistake.

[dooglus]

[...] if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source [...]

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if that means he should link the source code on the website itself. He technically does offer to access the Corresponding Source by posting a Mega link here.

I'll keep my distance on this regarding the license, I still believe this was an honest mistake.

The modified version must prominently offer its source code to all users interacting with it. Not all users reading a particular thread on a particular forum.

I'm willing to believe he didn't understand the license he was agreeing to. But now that it has been brought to his attention, that's not really an excuse for continuing to fail to comply with it.

[Pulley3]

what a difference day and night, affiliate program would be cool on this site

Or sig campaign.. Is there any opening right now?