On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 07:13:36AM +0200, David 'Bombe' Roden wrote: > On Friday 30 June 2006 22:48, Volodya wrote: > > > Thinking of it logically FileZilla client/server is more illegal then > > Freenet. > > Yeah, and Apache, and PureFTPd, and netcat, and IRC clients, messengers, > TCP/IP stacks (!)... the list goes on and on. That's just plain stupid.
It's much easier to make a case that Freenet is a filesharing tool which doesn't support blacklisting, than to make the same case about Apache, whatever the technical situation. If somebody posts an illegal file on an Apache server you just ask the operator to remove it. If somebody posts an illegal file on Freenet you can't even *find* the original operator. The DADVSI allows them to require that Freenet incorporate a global blacklist, which we WILL NOT DO. > > David -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060703/b3bf8e47/attachment.pgp>
