If you have other red flags or reasons that you don’t believe me, please reach out. I sort of get your argument that we don’t have enough traction or funding yet to be “trusted” in the community yet, but I really don’t understand what I/We have done to gain your opinion that we are unbelievable.
My original post at Financing Software Built for the Internet Computer was clearly in a spirit of discussion, conversation, and experimentation. It received no feedback
The two libraries that we sponsored at GitHub - aviate-labs/ulid.mo: ULID Generator for Motoko and uuid.mo/LICENSE at main · aviate-labs/uuid.mo · GitHub were both published with the Apache 2.0 license and I’m sure the author would be more than happy to confirm that I in no way tried to get him to use the @aramakme license.
When I re-raised the issue in Candy Library - Try 2 - Financing Software on the IC I did so specifically to make sure that any profits benefited the community, in the hope that I could bring more attention to the desired topic at hand, and to expose findings of the experiment for others to learn from. It would have been much easier to rug pull the people that invested time and effort into the original experiment and just to let it die on the vine. I did not do that.
The only outreach I had from anyone before the neuron proposal was from @borovan on the dev discord just after Christmas where I again expressed a desire to have a discussion and not to push “rent-seeking code”. Discord
A couple of days later I asked borovan if he wanted to engage in a public discussion about it and seek the best way to handle cycle sharing type code and he declined for his own valid reasons, but I also didn’t know that there was a broader set of folks with the same concerns. He can confirm with you that I expressed a commitment to installing a generic license in the base code on 1/3 before the neuron proposal went live in a private chat.
Since you’ve spoken up in this post I’ve addressed this topic with nothing but a consistent approach and clarified any issues that you’ve had concerns about.
It has become clear that some people are proactively reaching out to others in the community to imply that ICDevs.org can’t be trusted. Since we don’t know who these folks are it is hard to counteract this narrative at the scale you’ve seemed to have managed to spread this meme. I’m more than happy to discuss this with you and the others that have developed this opinion.