The code seems most heavily copied from ethereumj
LGPL violation/Missing references to Ethereumj project
31–40 of 68 posts
Re: LGPL violation/Missing references to Ethereumj project
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gotta admit, he is a DAMN good marketer
More like a prophet at this point. It's very interesting to see how bubbles plays out. I do think cryptocurrencies are real and have big potential, but after seeing likes tron, verge, and doge, I also believe the current valuations are biggest bubbles of our lifetimes. Yet, you see people justifying ~10b$ valuation on the premise of a whitepaper written with broken english, then partnerships that are merely vaporware…
bitL, check out raiblocks, byteball or other DAG based coins.
For blockchain based coins, bitcoin-ng does provide ways to improve current way.
Re: LGPL violation/Missing references to Ethereumj project
#33> For those who are whining about this issue. All these issues are common in development. If you say it's not, you haven't worked on serious projects with so much pressure to deliver.
Don't most "serious" companies have lawyers that will spit venom at you if you even think about looking at code that doesn't have a permissible enough license?
Re: LGPL violation/Missing references to Ethereumj project
#34For those that haven't heard of TRON, it is what I would call one of the most successful scams in the history of cryptocurrency. It is a currency that was made on top of Ethereum (thus, it took no actual effort to create, as this can be done instantly and for free), paired with a significant amount of hype and lies to investors. The TRON Whitepaper (what investors are 'supposed' to read and invest off of) is written…
Wow. Thanks for the sources.
His Twitter profile says
"@Forbes Asia 30 Under 30丨the Only Millennial Student of Jack Ma from @alibabagroup"
Re: LGPL violation/Missing references to Ethereumj project
#35> For those who are whining about this issue. All these issues are common in development. If you say it's not, you haven't worked on serious projects with so much pressure to deliver. Don't most "serious" companies have lawyers that will spit venom at you if you even think about looking at code that doesn't have a permissible enough license?
A competent team would take it seriously. That said, you can be naive about it all too and not realize how serious licensing is to a company. So in my opinion it must be a company directive, and part of induction to make sure your developers understand the issue properly.
Re: LGPL violation/Missing references to Ethereumj project
#36> For those who are whining about this issue. All these issues are common in development. If you say it's not, you haven't worked on serious projects with so much pressure to deliver. Don't most "serious" companies have lawyers that will spit venom at you if you even think about looking at code that doesn't have a permissible enough license?
What company? Tron? I do not believe it really exists, or if they do, they are serious.
Re: LGPL violation/Missing references to Ethereumj project
#37Is tron name itself a violation of trademark, or copyright of Disney? Not much knowledgable on IP laws in the US, hence the question.
Titles can't be copyrighted. Words can be trademarked, but they aren't exclusive. As long as there is no risk of confusion, then the same word can be trademarked by different people for different purposes. Think: Apple Computer vs Apple the record label -- it wasn't an issue until Apple Computer started getting into the music business.
Apple Computers were already taken to court before they entered the music business but settled and part of that settlement was not to enter the music "biz".
Obviously they did later enter the music business, which is when Apple Corp (the record label) litigated for a second time.
Re: LGPL violation/Missing references to Ethereumj project
#38> For those who are whining about this issue. All these issues are common in development. If you say it's not, you haven't worked on serious projects with so much pressure to deliver. Don't most "serious" companies have lawyers that will spit venom at you if you even think about looking at code that doesn't have a permissible enough license?
legal doesn't know what it doesn't know
implementing controls to prevent or detect this kind of copypasta is very hard.. even more so at larger "serious" companies that have dozens of development teams spread across the world working on an enormous catalog of products
this happens far more than people want to admit.. there's a very slippery slope when it comes to searching for help online.. it's amazing how quickly a google search leads to a stackoverflow post that has sample/example code which then winds up in your company's codebase.. even at "serious" places
writing a clear external code usage policy that's covered in those yearly training programs that developers hate and blow through as fast as possible is about as good you're going to get stopping this kind of thing
Re: LGPL violation/Missing references to Ethereumj project
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like a prophet at this point. It's very interesting to see how bubbles plays out. I do think cryptocurrencies are real and have big potential, but after seeing likes tron, verge, and doge, I also believe the current valuations are biggest bubbles of our lifetimes. Yet, you see people justifying ~10b$ valuation on the premise of a whitepaper written with broken english, then partnerships that are merely vaporware…
bitL, check out raiblocks, byteball or other DAG based coins. For blockchain based coins, bitcoin-ng does provide ways to improve current way.
And any PoS/dPoS-coin with blockchain sharding. Like Ethereum, Cardano, EOS, Steem, BitShares, etc.
Re: LGPL violation/Missing references to Ethereumj project
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Titles can't be copyrighted. Words can be trademarked, but they aren't exclusive. As long as there is no risk of confusion, then the same word can be trademarked by different people for different purposes. Think: Apple Computer vs Apple the record label -- it wasn't an issue until Apple Computer started getting into the music business.
Apple Computers were already taken to court before they entered the music business but settled and part of that settlement was not to enter the music "biz". Obviously they did later enter the music business, which is when Apple Corp (the record label) litigated for a second time.
Pretty sure they had signed and entered an agreement preemptively, and their subsequent violation is what caused the later suit.