The logic of this confuses me. If you want to validate that you are in fact the original creator of QBus then surely making your original repository public or even just available to the appropriate parties would solve that?
If you claim that you own QBus, and you don’t care if it’s public, then why hide your repository? It just suggests that you have something to hide? I’m not accusing you of anything here but that’s the outwards image you’re projecting with your standoffish and overly defensive responses in this thread.
There’s nothing to hide, he just said that because you people are mixing both repos and want both to comply, when only ONE is taken as the official, wich, as stated by Kash, is Kakarot’s one…he was just showing you that he’s the actual creator, and if you REALLY take a look at Kakarot’s repo, all ESX code blocks are marked under ESX’s license, as Lazarus asked him to…
Also Linden’s part was replaced, so there’s NOTHING that violates any license, but seems like some people still don’t like the fact of QBCore being a public and LEGIT framework IMHO.
I am the one that spoke to Kakarot, and even Kakarot himself confirmed that Qbus was a derivative of ESX, so if you want to go there, I can provide all of this information. I am the one that got Kakarot to remove the stolen code from Illidan from his repository.
I am still currently trying to work with Kakarot as we speak in order to resolve this, as he is willing to work with us without us having to go through extreme measures.
If QBus was a legit and public framework, verified by the original owner, then the CFX staff wouldn’t STILL be calling it a leaked framework. The original author wouldn’t have any issue verifying to CFX staff that it is infact a legit framework that he holds the intellectual property rights to.
I don’t understand why you’re deflecting the main point here. KASH claims he wrote QBus. CFX (aka FiveM, aka the app we all rely on) claims it’s a leak; and obviously the ESX developers are now taking issue with it.
Surely if you were the owner of a framework that is being called a leak, you’d want to resolve the situation with the appropriate parties so that that framework can then be used and expanded and evolved with the community, no?
The burden of proof here is on the person claiming to be the owner, not the other way around.
In this situation, yes. But if ESX staff team is trying to claim it as their own and Kakarot is required to change the license, then THEY have to prove their intellectual property of the framework KASH had said is the official copy of QBUS, which is Kakarot’s repo. There have been past disputable in trying to get the framework legitimized. I dont know the whole conversation on why it wasn’t but it isnt like they are trying to hide anything and not get it legitimized. The forums are simply not stating WHY they arent allowing it when Kakarot’s repo is currently the only official QBus repo.
For ESX, it’s not a matter of who is the owner or not. We think that KASH and some1 worked together on Qbus but it hasn’t been proven to us, yet it’s more a matter of not following the license terms, and the incessant denial of being derivative of ESX, when the current maintainer himself has already stated that it was a derivative, and is 100% willing to comply, yet people are in this thread arguing when they don’t know what they are talking about. There is no purpose in this being a public conversation in the first place, as it should be handled in discussions between the staffs.
This will be my final response, as I will continue the conversation with Kakarot now in Discord, and no longer be part of this.
I agree with this though. While I know that the Github is the real KASH, the same person that created arguably one of the most insecure resources in ESX esx_kashacters… a primary factor that still bugs me and makes me question the legitimacy of KASH as being the creator of Qbus with some1. Additionally, there is the stuff with TB-Framework as well that hasn’t been brought up here except once, and hasn’t been delved into really.
I would like to see the commit history for the “original” repo, and especially the initial commit. We could answer many questions this way. It would answer once and for all whether KASH was part of the project since the beginning, and if he was, then great. And the commits would speak for themselves about which code was derived from ESX, and which was original.
I am working with Kakarot to try to get this information, but I do not wish to have this devolve into arguing and fighting between ESX/Qbus. Just as I told Kakarot, we don’t have a problem that Qbus is derived from ESX, that’s the exact purpose of GPL License, it’s open-source, for everyone. Our concern is that if you derive a work from ESX, the portions of said work that are derived from ESX, must comply with the ESX License. Kakarot is fine with this, and he and I are not at odds at all. But it’s the same as I told him:
If Kash or Kakarot wants to prove the validity of Qbus, they need to open the “original” repo, and let us look at the commit history. The fact that Kash has refused to show this, has hurt the validity more than given any credence to it being legit. Otherwise, they will never get past this “leaked” “stolen” stigma.
The screenshot that Kash provided, shows a repo where the beginning of the repo was deleting code, which goes against writing something from scratch on it’s own.
Thanks everyone for making a discussion greatful, It’s too hard to understand what’s going but still we got many answers by @KASH and @Apocalomega_Producti , Whatever qbus is leaked or anything. I agree you about GitHub repo and tb-framework, whatever the decision you made with qbus developers that worked from scratch, and you will comply esx with that one.
Waiting for qbus to be verified else it will remain leaked stuff for Cfx forums.
An Element will get back to you all on this topic soon, so for the time being I’ll request that you stand by. The topic will remain locked until further notice.
Okay, after long discussions with @Kakarot and the ESX team, we have concluded that QBCore is indeed original work. So, this has been sorted out. There is an important distinction to be made: QBus has been renamed to QBcore, to clarify the update. QBCore is a derivative of ESX, and has therefor been licensed accordingly. Thanks for being patient all!
to me.