@KASH It’s ok, but why forums tell that it’s leaked! As per this discussion was closed after mods replied but now again I question why this is
now also leaked.
Better to understand everyone’s questions, a mod should be respond.
Request any mod to reply here.
@moderators
If we are kids then , are mods also?
Well I had a question and I got replied by mods.
They too are kids?
Wait till mods to reply.
No better justification is needed.
Over to mods
#nooffense
contact the mods and cfx team instead of saying we are kids lol, if i am a kid then maybe you are a baby 
if its really legit then its very good news, the more framework to fivem community the more it will be a greater platform.
no hate and offense we are just following the rules, if it get legalized here, then cheers.
@KASH Send it to CFX team, im pretty sure QB will be legalized here.
And @KASH
Afaik qb is based on Esx right?
Most of the codes is similar and reworked and yes actually upgraded to maybe a little better one…
But the problem is do you have a permision from esx team regarding the similar codes, functions etc? Im sure its a copy and you just reworked and redesign the system.
Maybe someone from esx team can enlighten us so we can end this madness about qbcore as a copy of esx.
Maybe @Linden ?
I’ve looked at the repository listed as the “original files” a few times, and while I cannot validate their authenticity it is absolutely a fork of the ESX framework - intended for private use. If you compare a lot of the quirks in there to esx_kashacters it does lead me to believe KASH is behind it (not that I doubt his claims).
I don’t want to speak too much more on the matter but I have mentioned this stuff with the team.
Lol it’s just an American saying. No reason to be upset. The CFX team has already made it clear they won’t ever acknowledge the framework as I’ve personally contacted the mods and even Aurum so really the argument is and always will be pointless.
I can assure you I wrote the core and core functions from scratch, there wouldn’t be a point in creating a new framework because I thought ESX sucks.
The similarity of getting the Core object (which works the same as ESX) is because me and other people who worked on it were used to it so we decided to make the same thing work. I you’re pity because of one aspect that is the same as the ESX framework it wouldn’t make any sense. Lots of people have used Qbus now, lots of people prefer it to ESX so I don’t care at the end what happened with this but don’t call my shit out to be copied without any reason.
yeah, thanks for replying, it seems its really a esx copy. so yeah, if you dont want to talk about it no worries.
If you look at the mantained repo, there’s an ESX Licensing part regarding specific blocks of code, wich were forked from ESX, and proper credits are given, according to ESX’s license…
I don’t understand why this nonsense keeps going, KASH is here, he shown proof of being the original author, and releasing it, and people still saying it’s “leaked”…the repo has made REAL progress in the last months and it’s now easy to tell wich script comes from leaks and wich one is actually from the official repository, but OK.
And for the one that said we share “paid” resources on the discord, that’s completely fake, we don’t encourage leaks and GigahertzGarage was always really clear on that, NO LEAKS there, in fact every file not coming from a github link is almost insta deleted.
I will answer this, and I am currently in the process of speaking with FuraXx about how we will handle this situation from the perspective of ESX.
I do not have knowledge of the original creators of Qbus, but either way, the repo that Kash has on his Github is NOT valid.
I have set the es_extended repo to public again for the sake of showing the license properly and it’s terms: es_extended/LICENSE at legacy · esx-framework/es_extended · GitHub
I have not personally went through all of the qbus files, but I did go through the qb-core resource, and that resource is violating the ESX License, and providing that repo is unlawful distribution, since it does not comply with the GPL license. We will do further research now, and we will be sending a notice pointing out all infringing portions of code.
@KASH You don’t get to say that you wrote the core and core functions from scratch when you literally have IllidanS4’s entityEnumerator code in there verbatim, and you removed his license without permission. So not only are you violating GPL License, you are violating Illidan’s license as well by distributing that repository.
However, I did speak to KASH on Discord, and he stated that Kakarot is the one that is maintaining this project. Kakarot is willing to comply with the GPL License, and ESX is attempting to work together with Kakarot to handle this properly.
So Qbus, you need to decide. Which repo is the real repo? If KASH’s repo is the real repo, then the repo is invalid. If Kakarot’s repo is the real repo, then Kash’s repo is still invalid, but we can make Kakarot’s repo comply with GPL. Kash showed no interest in making his repo comply with GPL license, so we will be sending a notice to that repo.
Explain; If you look at the functions, events, etc they are not at all the same, there are a few yes, but those functions are covered under the ESX license not the QBUS license. For example, es_extended/server/classes/player.lua compared to qb-core/server/player.lua are completely different logic, the file structure is completely different, events are completely different. ESX didn’t support a proper multicharacter at the initial creation of qb-core, qb-core is setup for qb-inventory which is completely different logic than the default inventory built into ESX.
Thanks for that, you made this a lot easier for me.
So you guys only care about the functions? I don’t think a single person using the framework would mind having them removed and implement them themselves, so if you want I can delete them.
That some functions (which I searched up on the forum) are in one file doesn’t mean its all copied or forked from your framework
I mean… make the original repository public so people can authenticate that you wrote it and didn’t in fact base QBus on ESX? Surely that would resolve literally every problem you seem to be having.
I don’t think people really care if you made non-sensical commit logs…
I wasn’t speaking about Kakarot’s repo, I was speaking about KASH’s repo. I am officially asking which one is the real one, because whichever one is the real one needs to comply.
Whichever one isn’t, needs to go.
And, if they are both valid repos, then they both need to comply.
This conversation is not meant to be an argument, and thanks to Kash’s asinine response, we will handle Kash’s repo. If Kash is claiming that his repo is the real source, and he wishes for that to be public, then the entire framework does not comply with the licensing terms.
they are both the real one, kakarots is the updated and maintained one and KASH’s is the original files at the time of release.
At the end I really don’t care what happens, people can use it if they want. If you want to try take it down whatever I don’t care just have people what they want.
I will hide my repo, Kakarot’s repo is the official Qbus Framework repo. have fun
We will handle the rest outside of CFX Forums. I have no interest in listening to petty insults being hurled towards ESX, when we came to resolve something in order to try to help Qbus get validated.
If we take a look at Kakarot’s repo, the claim you have on some functions, such as the enemurateEntities is not even used anymore nor is apart of the official release. As stated by Kash, this is the official one to be used to compare. Trying to get this verified as an ESX copy would simply not work. It probably work to not allow it on the forums because the forums have continuously called this a leaked framework. At the end of the day, you can’t claim the current state of the official QBus repo as a ESX fork.