> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:28:43 CDT, "Scott G. Miller" writes: > > > I don't think the fact that we didn't acknowledge you means that you > > shouldn't develop it. We can't and won't tell people what to write > > and what not to write. However, politically its a bad idea for the > > core development effort to do such a thing. Outside the main > > development push we have no control. > > Certainly I could go off and develop a Freenet variant on my own, but > my intent is to help out the core team in some way. Since the core > team isn't raising a lot of eyebrows about the idea, it's likely that > I'll be of better help to the core if I spend my time on something > else. I'm looking at some of the GUI stuff now. If you were planning on mucking about with something other than a client, then I agree. We really think we have an excellent handle on the communications, with a lot of smart people, simulators, and such. But it doesnt require (imho) any changes to the protocol to support an alternate client.
-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20000726/da887aab/attachment.pgp>
