[tobaccofarmer]

REMOVED BY ADMIN my argument in this conversation

 

[JannesBonk]

i told you: Bro i'm tired asf and you won alr, can we quit. LOL. I'm your papi anyways

bro i litteraly just got off a 6 hour shift at that time, u are lit 14, how tf can u be tired, it wasnt even late for u

 

[adriienk]

bro i litteraly just got off a 6 hour shift at that time, u are lit 14, how tf can u be tired, it wasnt even late for u

what the oh no do you care?, anyways man, cope harder.

 

[tenacity]

about "exit scamming" not at all, all beta users have been backed up in case i ever get back into hvh

"all beta users have been backed up in case i ever gat back into hvh" I EVER GET BACK INTO HVH ? you will compensate them with another paste ? bet they cant even access the cheat anymore and they will not receive updates

 

[adriienk]

REMOVED BY ADMIN my argument in this conversation

hahahaha, best response yet

 

[Slendy_]

"all beta users have been backed up in case i ever gat back into hvh" I EVER GET BACK INTO HVH ? you will compensate them with another paste ? bet they cant even access the cheat anymore and they will not receive updates

medusa now has a different owner

 

[JannesBonk]

medusa now has a different owner

yea but he quit

 

[Slendy_]

yea but he quit

no? if u talk about syskey then maybe yes

 

[tenacity]

medusa now has a different owner

ofc it has another owner which quit , ofc jannes won't want to be the one who exit scammed ...

 

[JannesBonk]

no? if u talk about syskey then maybe yes

idk abt the other guy

 

[Slendy_]

ofc it has another owner which quit , ofc jannes won't want to be the one who exit scammed ...

another owner didnt quit. jannes and syskey(i think) only quit

 

[tenacity]

another owner didnt quit. jannes and syskey(i think) only quit

jannes has not any excuse, even if medusa has another owner jannes is not in it and as everyone knows jannes was the main owner of medusa , he still scammed people by deleting medusa server and leaving.. swaggers (owner of gamesense.dog) did not quit or delete his cheat after he got exposed and his cheat got freeed by multiple people and then we have jannes which deleted and leave medusa cause someone told him to ? there is not a logic basis in this

 

[Giuseppe]

For real bruh.Just asking,what the oh no did Jannes do to void?I don't really get it,the only thing that I understood was that Jannes stole or pasted something from void.Can I get an explanation?

He has his reasons.

 

[adriienk]

Jannes Bonk oh no with the bulls, get the horns.... #CopeHarder

 

[Giuseppe]

Yeah bro, Where i told u to do that?, when i first met u, i make it simple to you: WHEN I DIDN'T KNEW YOU WAS A RETARD personA, know you understand?. Also, why u fake so much your info, first london, later u say to some random guy you are 25 and live with your parents, later you say you are bald, later you say me you have 18 you live alone and you work?. This persona is special.

10yo kids when youtube asks for their age be like

 

[adriienk]

10yo kids when youtube asks for their age be like

hahahaha, jannes is saying so much bullshit man i cant believe it

 

[tenacity]

10yo kids when youtube asks for their age be like

it is what it is , at least its nice to see tjat finally jannes got exposed generally and tried to damage control ...

 

[adriienk]

it is what it is , at least its nice to see tjat finally jannes got exposed generally and tried to damage control ...

its nice to see the truth now.

 

[voidzero]

pasting = his fault for making it public
selling = no license on reflect.codes source that forbidds me from selling it

no license means its proprietary code which you are not allowed to sell it by default

 

[voidzero]

Before we jump into the implications, let’s define what a license does for software. A license is a grant of rights. To use a piece of software, whether it’s open source or commercial, you need some grant of rights. In the U.S. and many other places, creative work (including software) is protected by exclusive copyright by default. This means that no one can legally use, copy, distribute, or modify that software without explicit permission from the creator/author. This permission comes in the form of a license that grants the right to do so. Without that license, the baseline assumption is that you do not have permission to use the software.

Clearly, including an open source component without a license in a commercial application can be problematic for a company. Organizations that use unlicensed code are at a greater risk of violating copyright law than those using licensed components, because in the absence of a license grant, a user can’t determine what their rights are (if any).

But given the copyright law stated above, there is no grant of rights without explicit permission from the creator/author. Thus, the assumption with components like these is that you don’t have permission to use, modify, or distribute the component. In these situations, a company has to decide how risk-adverse it is. Without a license, a company does not have permission to use the component and runs the risk of a costly and time-consuming IP lawsuit.