Quote from: faltoyan on February 12, 2018, 10:28:50 AM

Quote from: tychecoin on February 12, 2018, 10:20:58 AM

Quote from: faltoyan on February 12, 2018, 10:16:29 AM

Quote from: tychecoin on February 12, 2018, 09:42:44 AM

Quote from: faltoyan on February 11, 2018, 08:13:47 PM

Are you based on Bytecoin or Monero ? If yes, then you might have copyright issues. Recently SUMO developers had to fix their source code copyright issues as their initial source code is based on Monero (which IIRC itself is based on Bytecoin) See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1905086.msg29047236#msg29047236

If based on forknote, apparently there are issues with that, See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2892686.msg30087608#msg30087608

Bytecoin is reference implementation of CryptoNote and Monero is based on Bytecoin. TycheCash is also an implementation of CryptoNote but under original CryptoNote MIT licence , so there's no copyright issues. Infact the revised reference to CryptoNote will be updated in GitHub, which is not compulsory under the MIT Licence, but to keep the spirit of open-source and keep TycheCash always in open-source spirit it will be done.

The MIT/BSD License allows you to do the following
1. Ship binaries without having to provide the source whether its unmodified or modified
2. When providing the source the original copyright should be maintained.
3. All new additions to the source code will by copyrighted by the developer adding those modifications

The source code copyright statement has "// Copyright (c) 2011-2016 The TycheCash developers"

Now even if you give attribution to the CryptoNote developers elsewhere, essentially the copyright statement indicates that the TycheCash developers are the original owners of the source code in question. But that is not true, TycheCache developers only have copyright over the new additions to the code (and i don't think variable/file name changes can be considered new additions).

But I am not the best person to talk about copyrights. At the same time i thought i should bring this to your notice.

There's difference between MIT and BSD licence , what you mentioned is true for BSD , in MIT licence you are free not to mention that.

I was talking with the BSD license in mind which i assumed is similar to the MIT license, so i am wrong then. But you still have to retain the "Copyright " part i think. See https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

Yup thanks for bringing that to notice,will update that.