Dear Kusama council, The Fearless Wallet proposal has the purpose of developing infrastructure to make it easier for existing users to interact with Dotsama, and provide a simple interface for new users to adopt the network. At the end of the day, this development is for the benefit of all the members of the community.

The proposal was posted two weeks ago, however only today it is becoming the subject of this controversy, which quite honestly seems more of an obstacle for a particular team to put forward their implementation, than an actual issue specific to this particular case.

If there are any other wallets that put forward a proposal to build something similar, we would also support them, because, at the end of the day, this is for the users. If, on the other hand, the users see that the teams are bickering between each other over topics that should be resolved behind closed doors, as established companies do, then that will be a red flag that will make them go for other networks. The question about Fearless Wallet, Apache2 and other points raised are not directly addressing the core of this proposal, and if the members of the committee are changing their votes because of he-said-she-said between one particular team and the proposers, instead of basing their vote on the value that the technology brings to the ecosystem and its users, then it is no better than centralized entities.

As a member of the community and a user who cares about the growth and adoption of the network, and not the politics, I suggest the council judge this proposal by its merits and support the notion that the dispute brought forward by the NOVA team be dismissed, and instead their team focus their attention on building quality tools for the network so that their technology, and not controversies do the talking.

@37685a93a0044c77bc8090317 The fact that you and your team think that matters concerning public treasury proposals should be "resolved behind closed doors," moved from public conversation on discord/matrix to polkassembly, and now from the discussion post to this motion where I'm sure you were hoping no one would see it (save for the same 6 supporters you've carted over from your server you have supporting this post) is extremely telling.

You are asking for treasury funds. You're not entitled to treasury funds, as much as you seem to believe you are. To call answering the concerns of the community "no better than centralized entities" is the world's most transparent attempt at Web3 "are you now or have you ever been" nonsense imaginable. Stow the "oooh competition is good for the ecosystem" while in active litigation with your competition and answer the following questions that have been asked repeatedly:

1. Explain how open source software can make the following copyright claim and still purport to be open source:

"Copyright protects certain elements of the Fearless Wallet: Polkadot, Kusama, such as the UI elements (e.g. the bottom control panel, the Stacking dialog box) and the texts used in the app.We believe that Opponent has illegally used / reworked the design solutions protected as copyrights. Soramitsu Helvetia AG has not authorized the commercial use or rework of the Fearless Wallet: Polkadot, Kusama app."

2. State definitively if Soramitsu will be continuing to attempt to prevent Nova Wallet from proceeding with development via legal means.

3. Detail what unique features the Fearless desktop wallet offers or improves on significantly that warrant treasury funding when so many other wallets have already been funded by the treasury.

You are either part of the community that cares about the growth and adoption of the network or you're a company cutting out your swath of the landscape for your own benefit. Pick a lane and stick to it, nobody needs the platitudes, and you won't find the community behind closed doors or in a court of law. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

After talking to both sides, I wish we could re-do this as a proposal to the community. As a Council member, and with very little time to analyze both sides of the story here, I don't feel that I am qualified to come to a conclusion on what we should do. If I could abstain, I would, and ask this to be re-submitted as a proposal to the community.

However, I can't since, I have already voted. So at this point, I have decided that I can only look at the proposal and vote based on that. I don't think this is an ideal situation, but I also don't want the Council to become a universal arbiter of behavior.

Luckily, gov v2 will be here soon..

I agree with Zooeys's post.

With all respect, I would like to address a couple of things from my side to the William post above:

The proposal was posted two weeks ago, however only today it is becoming the subject of this controversy, which quite honestly seems more of an obstacle for a particular team to put forward their implementation, than an actual issue specific to this particular case.

This is exactly one of the things that will be improved in Governance 2.0. I think that Councillors have a limited amount of time/resources which sometimes results in unavailability to dive into the details of the proposals & the context. As was mentioned in the Kusama Direction channel, some didn't see similar feedback to the previous Fearless proposal, so after it was brought up, councilors could take this into the account.

The question about Fearless Wallet, Apache2 and other points raised are not directly addressing the core of this proposal

They are addressing the core of the proposal — The proposal is coming from the company which violated the previous agreement with Kusama Treasury of Fearless open source deliverables to be licensed under Apache 2.0 (and following this license), therefore, before receiving future funding from Kusama Treasury, this situation should be settled. That's it.

the members of the committee are changing their votes because of he-said-she-said between one particular team and the proposers

This is not "he-said-she-said", and it's not a rumor. It's a fact and a violation from the proposer which needs to be explained. All proofs have been provided to raise a question — why proposer decided to file DMCA complaint on the project which used open source deliverables? This question still remains unanswered by the proposer, therefore members of the committee are changing the votes.

and not the politics, I suggest the council judge this proposal by its merits and support the notion that the dispute brought forward by the NOVA team be dismissed

This is not politics, but a violation of deliverables of the previous proposals. Imagine getting funding from Kusama Treasury for building an open source font licensed with Apache 2.0, and after sometime once ecosystem apps' have started to use it, strike DMCA complaints to each app that the proposer is not liking and which is using it. This would question the proposer and would require a public explanation to Kusama Treasury, and the whole situation would be raised if the proposer would request future funding.

instead their team focus their attention on building quality tools for the network so that their technology, and not controversies do the talking.

One is not contradicting another. We respect honesty & open source, so we will always stand on the ground of justice when they are violated.

At the end of the day, the Nova team is maintaining good & healthy relationships with all projects in the ecosystem, including wallets — Talisman, SubWallet, Polkadot JS & Polkadot JS Plus, Polkawallet, and others. We are driving innovations all together and helping each other to improve the products. With the proposer, however, we have to stay neutral taking into account everything that has been done to our team by the proposer (this includes DMCA complaint and the rest). We should focus on empowering each other inside of the ecosystem to bring real value to web3 & beyond, instead of removing the apps of each other from app markets for 5 months & raising legal disputes without legal reasoning.

We encourage the proposer to address questions that were asked on Polkassembly & Kusama Direction regarding the reasoning of DMCA complaint, as well as the technical/product comparison of upcoming extension with the other extension that are built in the ecosystem.

Anton Khvorov and nova team have been using intellectual property without any permission for almost a year! What a shame for the nova team! Check nova releases https://github.com/nova-wallet/nova-wallet-android-releases/releases/tag/v2.0.1 and https://github.com/nova-wallet/nova-wallet-android-releases/releases/tag/v2.0.1 The nova team's behavior is very unprofessional hopefully they will gain enough experience in the future. I checked, the trademark was registered in October. Anton misrepresents the information. If Anton damages, he should be sued.

First of all, to sumup the whole situation, in my opinion:

— Proposer has not provided their reasoning on why they decided to violate their Apache 2.0 open source license by filling DMCA complaint against Nova via Google Play. The DMCA complaint was formed around UI elements and text which are licensed under Apache 2.0, however proposer decided to state to in their claim to Google that it was copyright infringement. It took the Nova team 5 months of deliberation with Google in order to return the app to Google Play by proving that we have used the open source code and there was no copyright infringement (something which Google agreed on, hence why Nova Wallet is back on the Google Play store).

— Proposer decided to attempt to shift attention from their original DMCA complaint (which was based on copyright infringement) to a new topic of the use of “trademark” and “trade secrets” which were never a subject of DMCA complaint (DMCA complaint text has been provided on PA).

— I can assure you that there were no “trade secrets” violated/disclosed/whatsoever, also Proposer has never substantiated these claims in any way. The issue of the unintended use of FW logo was removed asap from Nova, and I really don’t think that it has anything to do with the situation and was more of an attempt to shift the attention/gaslight.

— Proposer decided to first ignore questions, threatened Nova with “court actions”, and then released a public statement which has still not clarified the reasoning behind DMCA complaint but instead attempts to shift the attention to different topics, including going to personal attacks.

— Proposer has not provided the requested clarification about the technical details of their upcoming browser extension and how this solution differs from existing ones. In addition to that, it was not addressed as to what the value-add is of building another browser extension in the current circumstances in which we have more than 5 of them. Proposer still has not provided clear details as to the value provided from creating new one. A feature to connect a mobile app with a browser extension, in my opinion, is screaming to be integrated with existing extensions & collaborating with them, rather than building own. After all, Polkadot & Kusama is all about interoperability and collaboration.

As I was stating on Polkassembly and on Jay’s “AAG” series — my personal intent was to finally settle this situation publicly and achieve neutral ground with the proposer after their actions towards us. An ideal scenario for us is to get clarification regarding the real reasoning behind DMCA complaint (emotional decision, attempt to shut down the competitor, whatever — but an honest one), receive an apology, and for us all to settle down and build towards bettering the ecosystem, potentially even collaborating. These things as of yet haven’t happened and instead more insults/misinformation was received. In this case, Kusama community will decide how to settle this situation and the proposal, and I believe that both parties will remain on the same ground.

the nova team should apologize for using fearless wallet intellectual property without permission. it's a shame for dotsama to have teams like nova. there are real proofs the nova team have been using the IP without permission for almost a year. omni desktop development by nova is very doubtful. there is no string of the code or promised demo (as stated in https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/1160), the github is dead https://github.com/orgs/nova-wallet/repositories

The ref 241 for almost 95% of the time was passing. It changed in the last 2.5 hours and added more in the last 5 minutes. Moreover, the number of Kusama addresses who voted AYE (875) is more than nay (747)! Nova Foundation spent 4 x 4,220KSM at the last minutes that was given them as a grant. They definitely don't need this grant but they are blind with this referanda. Instead of spending it against other development they should spend it to their own. https://kusama.subscan.io/extrinsic/15220784-4 Anton voted at the last minutes too https://kusama.subscan.io/extrinsic/15220719-8. Anything in the last day of a vote can be considered a snipe, there's no way people are actively playing attention. In the next proposal Nova should mention they spend given KSM to vote against other development and not to develop.