Call it whatever you want, just not "Open Source" and definatly not "Free
Software". "Managed Source" sounds a lot like "Shared Source".
(Sorry aboutt the previous messages to devl; I'm putting all further
messages on chat).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 8:44 PM
Subject: RE: [freenet-devl] MercuryFS
> Theres a difference between a simple license and the technology. And
> besides, when I'm done with it, it will not look the GPL at all. And I did
> ask for permission, and they didn't respond. So there you have it. There's
> many other licenses out there to choose from. I'm currently looking at the
> Mozilla license, because I like it better.
>
> So I used the wrong words. What should I call it? "managed open source"
> "community open source" "my open source"? I have a design to write, not
> licenses. What do you wall want to call it? Since this is a big issue for
> all of you, you can all rename it to your liking.
>
> As for the SS, if they call us and say that they president is going to get
> shot, and somehow a UNI ID is involved, do you expect me to not work with
> them? Give me a break. Welcome to reality. There is no way ANY global file
> system can operate without having to work with law enforcement. They have
> the most to loose by taking advantage of us, because if they do, they will
> get denied. Then the next time there is a threat to the president, they
will
> be sorry. You guys don't understand the difference between protective
> services and general law enforcement.
>
> I'm not going to hire some young attorney right out of the ACLU to accept
> the court orders and answer the phone when the SS call. I'm going to hire
2
> old clients of mine, ones a cop, the other is a retired SS agent. They are
> both good people, know the law, and have over 20 years experience with
these
> issues.
> I'd trust most experienced cops with those issues before inexperienced
> computer whizs.
>
> Speaking of words, do any of you know what the original "freenet" was?
> Understand, I'm not saying you don't.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Behalf Of Rob Cakebread
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 6:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] MercuryFS
>
> On Tuesday 24 July 2001 05:46 pm, you wrote:
> > Is that all you have to say? A terminology issue?
> > Open source is a method, not a religion.
>
>
> Funny how you have a problem with people stealing intellectual property
but
> it was ok to steal the GPL, re-word it. and use it without the EFF's
> permission.
>
> I think you have it right on the front page: 'nearly free'. If you changed
> all the references in the license from 'open source' to 'nearly free' we
> wouldn't be laughing at you.
>
> This is my favorite terminology:
>
> "17. You may not use MFS and/or UNI ID to threaten a life, violate
national
> security, sell drugs, distribute child porn, blah blah blah."
>
> Blah blah blah.
>
> There is no Open Source license that by any stretch of the imagination
> can be compared to your restrictive license.
>
> Oh brother. And this from your 'dream' manifesto:
>
> "Uniformity via management of the global MFS standards:
> Patents
> Trademarks
> Open source public license, similar to GNU public license.
> You can't steal something that's free.
>
> The GPL is free, but it is also copyrighted and you ripped it off because
> the EFF didn't respond within your time frame. Are we free of MerfucryFS'
> license if you don't respond when we want you to?
>
> We might not steal your software, but you say you will sue us for
> blah blah blahing with it.
>
> Sweet Jesus. I'm not making this part up. It's in his dream:
> http://www.mercuryfs.net/the_dream.htm
>
> "I intend to hire retired cops and SS personnel, the public will trust
> them.
> They understand law, and the balance of the peoples rights and individual
> rights."
>
>
>
> > There is no reason why I can't do both to accomplish my goals. Go to
> > www.mercuryfs.net/license.htm for the current version. If you read the
> > license, you will probably find that it satisfies your requirements.
> >
> > Remember, my goal is for a unified single standard. That will take a bit
> of
> > management to achieve.
> > I would be a real shame to pass us by because of terminology.
> >
> > If so, o-well. I tried.
> >
> > - josh
> >
> > PS: just because you have no respect for intellectual property doesn't
> mean
> > you should attempt to force this method onto others. If you don't want
to
> > talk, that's fine.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 5:42 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [freenet-devl] MercuryFS
> >
> > << File: ATT00008.dat >> http://www.mercuryfs.net/
> >
> > This guy claims that it is P2P, open source *and* patent pending.
> > sounds like he doesn't actually grasp what "open source" means.
> >
> > Comments welcome.
> >
> > Ian.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devl mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devl mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devl mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
>
>
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
