Hey everyone,
Though this topic has been brought up previously, I haven't come across a clear answer.

If I import my keys today into the BTS wallet to claim the merger allocation of BTS , will this action then claim my stake and therefore only credit my wallet/account for 20 days worth of BTS (of the 2yrs due to me)?
Or do I need to wait until 2yrs to import the keys to be able to claim the full stake from the merger??

You can import your keys now and your full stake will gradually become available to you.

This is the only one https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6108.0

Not quite. I have packages for Fedora + openSUSE: http://software.opensuse.org/download.html?project=home%3Ap_conrad%3Abts&package=BitSharesX

Quote from: pc on November 21, 2014, 08:01:07 pm

I noticed two problematic files in the web_wallet: vendor/js/highcharts.src.js and vendor/js/highstock.src.js. These two are licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License". Notice the "NonCommercial", this is IMO a complete no-go for a P2P currency client.

thank you for the review!

The license language is:

Quote

You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.[...]

Who is actually in violation of the license? Developers for distributing code that is uses primarily for private monetary compensation ("compensation" might be the key word, since it's used for "gain" but not "compensation")? Traders that make money, but not traders that lose money? Delegates that run the GUI client to sign blocks? If I use those files to make a website showing BitUSD prices for free, and someone uses my website to make money - are they or I in violation (or neither?)

This is the "section 3" referenced above:

3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:

a)    to Reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collections, and to Reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collections;
b)    [...]
c)    to Distribute and Publicly Perform the Work including as incorporated in Collections; and,

The web_wallet "incorporates the Work". I. e. the person who initially committed this into the repo did so under the terms of the license. Anyone who clones the repo does so under the license. Anyone who distributes the software in source or binary form does so under the license. All of this in itself is not yet a violation of section 4a of the license, because the software is made available for free. (IMO the way the files have been "incorporated" is not sufficient wrt section 4c of the license, though.)

IANAL, but I think in general the term "reproduce" is also applied to loading the software into RAM in order to execute it. I. e. anyone who runs the software does so under the license.
I'm not sure what qualifies as "commercial advantage or private monetary compensation". I'm pretty sure though that a merchant using the gui client to receive payment for his goods would be using the software for "commercial advantage". Delegates with non-zero pay using the gui client would be doing this for "commercial advantage". A trader would likely also be using it for "commercial advantage", even if he is a bad trader - what counts is the intention, a bad trader isn't trading for his commercial disadvantage. Creating a free website showing BitUSD prices OTOH would not be a problem if you only use the gui client to extract the prices from the network (other than using the files in question to display charts in the user's browser).

However, public domain is GPL compatible:

This is a tricky subject. Yes, the unlicense is GPL compatible. But look what compatible means here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean

It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can combine code released under the other license with code released under the GNU GPL in one larger program.

All GNU GPL versions permit such combinations privately; they also permit distribution of such combinations provided the combination is released under the same GNU GPL version. The other license is compatible with the GPL if it permits this too.

Note "the same" GPL version. Is it at all possible to create software using both readline (GPL) and libraries/fc/src/crypto/romix (AGPL)?
Edit: answer here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html (section 13)

Additionally, all of the BSD+MIT licenses require distribution of the license terms along with the binary.

If you have moved the genesis stake you received from importing the PTS wallet, the answer is no you can't. The account key and the PTS keys are not related.

I you have not moved your genesis stake you can simply create a new account and import your PTS wallet again. (You should do that in any case, just to be sure.)

If I make some very wrong assumptions about delegate behavior, and if you think there is a 1% chance that the next delegate will be in a collusive group, then you can wait one minute (or two if chains compete?) and have a 1 in a million chance of this next string of delegates colluding to reverse history. That's still better than the confirmation you get from a bitcoin thin client after 10 minutes.

The problem I see is that a number of colluding delegates can make an honest delegate look bad (and possible get him to be automatically fired). This is dangerous.

Stuff we write has no restrictions except those imposed on it by 3rd party dependencies.

Erm, yes. But I think you don't handle the 3rd party dependencies correctly. (IANAL)

For example, the command line client links the readline library. readline is licensed under GPL. That means the CLI client must be GPL, too. You can't just stamp "public domain" on it, IMO. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Readline#Choice_of_the_GPL_as_GNU_Readline.27s_license .
Another example is the leveldb code. LevelDB comes with a BSD license requiring you to publish the license terms along with the binary. I don't think you do that anywhere.

What do you see here?
http://bitshares.org/vote-aug-21-noFMV.json

The same numbers.

It seems that I somehow miscalculated the VOTE ratio. The actual rate I have now is 13.24 BTS per PTS @ VOTE, which is exactly what I'd expect.

Sorry about the confusion.