On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 09:46:39PM -0700, Josh wrote:
> I have no respect for people that get caught up on terminology.
I explained, this is about more than terminology.
> And for the
> record, I diplomatically approached your group, and that's why I did it, for
> the record. Considering your complete lack of respect for intellectual
> property, I did not expect to succeed.
My view on intellectual property law has nothing to do with my criticism
that you have adopted the term Open Source while clearly having no idea
what it means.
> I choose to define open source as something that is open, and MFS is open,
> therefore its open source regardless of what you say it is. You are not the
> defender of open source.
No, but the Open Source Initiative is (see http://www.opensource.org/)
and you clearly violate their guidelines. Personally, I don't really
care, if you persist in applying the term Open Source to your decidedly
non-Open Source license terms, then you will merely turn yourself into a
laughing-stock.
> I will not remove those words from MFS, and you can
> draw all the attention to me as you want, including notifying GNU of by
> "violation" of their holy license.
Again, you betray your ignorance. GNU didn't invent Open Source, in
fact, neither did the Free Software Foundation, although they do produce
a license, the GPL, which falls under the Open Source definition.
> TCP/IP is open source, yet its still
> controlled. We can't have a viable internet with a dozen flavors of TCP/IP.
> I will not repeat the mistakes of others.
What are you talking about? TCP/IP is a protocol, people agree on it,
not because of some onerous patents (such as those you claim to be
seeking), but because it is a sensible protocol. If TCP/IP was
"protected" by patents, you can be assured that it would never have
become the standard Internet protocol.
> You don't understand management, I do.
I run a company employing 15 people.
> If you truly understood the issues, you wouldn't try to
> put me down in front of your own crowd.
You put yourself down, I tried to warn you of your error, and believe
me, I could have been much more vitriolic if I wanted to be.
> In my opinion, I was not humiliated,
> and I'd do it all again, for the record.
Please do, I am sure it would be equally amuzing.
> Only 5 people had bad things to
> say, out of the entire email list.
Only about 5 people say *anything* on the email list, and those that did
are probably the smartest people there. How many people agreed with
your warped definition of Open Source?
> At least I have the courage to step in
> front of the limelight. I don't value the opinion of hippies, and that's how
> I classify your group.
This is the funniest thing I have read in years! Hippies?! Do you even
know what a hippie is? It feels like I am talking to a 12 year old.
> You have no idea what I've had to go thru, to get to this point.
If you persist the way you are currently going, it will have been
nothing compared to the ridicule that is in-store for you.
> I've
> already confronted the government, you have not. I learned from Zimmerman's
> mistakes, that's why I'm still here and working on a project that they fear
> (a lot more than yours).
Personally I am having trouble believing you, you write like a 12 year
old with a grossly inflated ego. Can you provide some proof of your
heroic stand against oppression?
> Why don't you add strong global encryption to
> freenet, and see what $16 billion a year buys us.
What are you talking about? We employ extensive encryption in Freenet,
what exactly is your definition of "strong global encryption"?
> We have different political views. A good businessman can get past that, and
> realize that pragmatism is superior to ideology. You would make for a lousy
> consultant. You don't have much business sense, or else you wouldn't be so
> religious about defending open source. You think you're the defender of
> freedom of speech, yet you live in America. I laugh at people like you. Why
> don't you go to South Africa, or Chechyna, and set and example for all of
> us?
Your ignorance is rather amuzing, I have extensive business experience,
as you would know if you had done any research on me or Freenet.
> What it all boils down to is what technology will succeed. I know that my
> views are mainstream, yours are to the left. Based upon the numbers, and the
> fact that my technology has a lot more promise than yours does (in my
> opinion), we will see who succeeds, wont we?
Actually, I consider my views to be ultra-capitalist where information
is concerned (which is why your accusation that I am a "hippie" is
particularly funny).
> Unlike the Gnutella crowd, the freenet crowd will always be welcome to join
> the MFS project.
Please don't hold your breath. I quite like the Gnutella crowd.
> As for my design, do not read it since you disagree with the license.
I won't read it since you have demonstrated that you haven't bothered to
conduct even the most basic survey of Freenet (or if you have, you
certainly didn't understand it).
> PS: Do not borrow my technology unless you intend to follow the dream, which
> is an "open" dream.
Your definition of "open" is precisely the opposite of mine.
Ian.
PGP signature
