What's stopping David from doing this anyway, with or without the consent of The Freenet Corporation? Either people will use it or they won't use it. Either way it doesn't detract from the usefulness of Freenet. The only problem I can (really) see is that it could lead to a widespread misconception that "freenet == www.blah.free" and/or "freenet __only__ works with browser plugins" Admittedly a little misinformation can do a lot of damage. But is it worth hassling him now? The way I see it, freeweb is just an application rather
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments Ian Clarke
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments David McNab
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments eigenman
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments toad
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments Ian Clarke
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments eigenman
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments Ian Clarke
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments Ian Clarke
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments Dave Hooper
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments Ian Clarke
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments David McNab
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments Ian Clarke
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments toad
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments David McNab
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments thelema
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments David McNab
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments Ian Clarke
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments David McNab
- [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments Peter Todd
