On 11-06-28 at 04:58pm, berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:21:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 11-06-28 at 02:55pm, berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 07:39:43PM +0800, Sandy Harris wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
Hi,
although the topic is raised in various subjects, I think that there is
a need for a specific place to talk about how different freedomboxes
will be able to establish communication with each other.
This question doesn't concern itself with the contents of communication,
but rather with
On Jul 2, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Lukas Nagl wrote:
There are various ways to do this. Some centralized, some
decentralized, some require people meeting each other and some don't.
What possibilities do you see, and what do you propose?
an idea.
Every freedombox has some unique identifier
From: J David Eisenberg [mailto:jdavid.eisenb...@gmail.com]
You might also want to investigate Friendika (1); I'm running
a Friendika server (2), and it also allows groups, though I
haven't worked with them extensively. The Friendika protocol
is documented and in the public domain (3)
...
Another concern for me is the project has a BSD license. Does this make it
incompatible with the freedombox project? Which licences does the freedombox
support?
...
The BSD license without the advertising clause meets all relevant
FLOSS definitions:
...
Friendika's documentation makes a good point that all communications do not
need to be reciprocal. Boy gives a girl his number allowing the girl to call
him, but the boy cannot call the girl until she gives him permission(her
number). I never thought of that use case.
...
Yes, I think
I want FreedomBox to *only* be a tool to insist on using the private
home as platform for internet activities.
I do *not* want FreedomBox to be a waepon or a shield in itself, but
make it easy to extend with such as plugins.
I just wanna make FreedomBox.
Apparently you wanna make
On 07/02/2011 11:22 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:
On Jul 2, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Lukas Nagl wrote:
There are various ways to do this. Some centralized, some
decentralized, some require people meeting each other and some don't.
What possibilities do you see, and what do you propose?
an idea.
On 11-07-02 at 09:11am, Tony Godshall wrote:
I want FreedomBox to *only* be a tool to insist on using the private
home as platform for internet activities.
I do *not* want FreedomBox to be a waepon or a shield in itself, but
make it easy to extend with such as plugins.
I just
Behalf Of Marc Manthey
At the time you friend (connect) a profile instead of
Accept you
must choose a relationship(s) (sibling, parent, etc.) or
Ignore. The
same as facebook this relationship selection remains private. These
relationships can be based on XFN(1). This minimises
Behalf Of Tony Godshall
... The same principle exist between a reporter and a
whistleblower.
The pseudonymity article suggests the technology exists to protect
freedom fighters through unlinkable pseudonyms.
It's important, I think, to be able to extend the web of
trust to
11 matches
Mail list logo
