Such a tool would BY DEFINITION not be open source. And if it had to run in its own JVM there would be a major performance cost at least on older JVMs.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 06:11:37PM +0200, Newsbyte wrote: > "No. Ian points out that the DMCA is trumped by the GPL. Read section 6. > They have every right to modify the code. The only remaining argument is > "they can't make you run a program as easily as they can make you delete > a file". IMHO we are mostly talking about threats here, and if they > threaten you, tell you that unless you either run their hacked node > cleaner, or you shut your node down, they will sue you, you are likely > to do one or other of the demanded things. This is the same, isn't it, > as deleting files which they specify - which they are unlikely to give > you the keys for." > > Ok, I have two remarks on that one: > > First, let's say, for arguments sake, they can, indeed, change the code of > the node...of which node would that be, then? It doesn't matter what they do > on their node, after all. So, if you mean they can create a tool to modify > the node of a user himself, then you still have the right, as seen in the > betamax case, to refuse it, let alone that it would be far from trivial to > do such a thing. > > After all, if they can force that, what is stopping them (or the state) from > forcing you to use government approved freenet-nodes? They could just say > you should use freenet nodes that aren't anonymous (or run tools that make > it non-anonymous), so that you can delete all illegal stuff they can find. > > If I'm not mistaken, the court in the USA ruled in the grokster/aimster? > case that one is not obliged to change the software just to accomodate > persons that have complaints about illegal stuff. After all, even in the > betamax case oponents claimed it could and should be made safe and in a > manner that didn't allow illegal copying...but the supreme court did not > follow them there neither. > > Secondly, let's say what you say is true about the GPL and the losing of > protection without reservations; which is exactly what I said: it must be > stated explicitely in the licence. But it does NOT mean you can't have Open > Source (and yet still have DMCA protection). > > That's why I said it should be modular: a program working with a node, but > not necessarely part of the code. The GPL DOES allow other programs to be > 'hooked' on them, without them becoming automatically GPL'ed too, if I'm not > mistaken. > > So the solution would be rather simple: make a (even only in name) 'third > party' tool that works with the node, encrypts the content, but is not a > direct derivative work of it, and make it open source, but not GPL. In that > case, you keep the full protection of the DMCA, and as an aditional benefit, > changing the code of the node might not be of much use (and could be seen as > a circumvention of the encryption in any case). > > I'm well aware that you have other pressing matters, now. And it may be > right that it's unlikely that they will be able to snif out en masse the > chks...it will be more burdersome at any rate. Maybe one can even make the > chunks small enough so that they could, theoretically, fall under 'fair use' > (30 sec of a music file?), which would make it difficult to declare them > illegal on themselves. > > But still, I do think it's better to be safe then sorrow, and done in the > way I suggest, I really think it could be of considerable benefit in this > particular regard. > -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
