> I'm writing this into the installation notes right now, and reading > the notes, something that disturbs me is that the Freenet Node is > being refered to a Freenet Server everywhere. Nodes are not servers, > they are nodes. Refering to it as a server is bad because: > > b) If they are servers they are not allowed by a lot of TOS > agreements. The reason for these agreements is that ISPs wish to > protect their server hosting and keep it off the local bandwidth, but > no one else can run your Freenet Node for you, it has to be local.
A server by any other name would still use as much outgoing bandwidth. According to Friday's Wired online, Napster has now been banned by Cox at Home in San Diego because it is a de facto server. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,35523,00.html. I don't think anyone calls Napster clients "servers", but that is really what they are, and the same is true of Freenet nodes. What we write in the documentation won't change that. ISPs are concerned about bandwidth, not semantics. Hal _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
