Here's "your" copy, and no, you do not own it. -----Original Message----- From: Josh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 9:47 PM To: 'Ian Clarke' Subject: RE: [Moved to chat] MercuryFS I have no respect for people that get caught up on terminology. And for the record, I diplomatically approached your group, and that's why I did it, for the record. Considering your complete lack of respect for intellectual property, I did not expect to succeed. I choose to define open source as something that is open, and MFS is open, therefore its open source regardless of what you say it is. You are not the defender of open source. I will not remove those words from MFS, and you can draw all the attention to me as you want, including notifying GNU of by "violation" of their holy license. TCP/IP is open source, yet its still controlled. We can't have a viable internet with a dozen flavors of TCP/IP. I will not repeat the mistakes of others. You don't understand management, I do. I've been dealing with managers for over a dozen years. If you truly understood the issues, you wouldn't try to put me down in front of your own crowd. In my opinion, I was not humiliated, and I'd do it all again, for the record. Only 5 people had bad things to say, out of the entire email list. At least I have the courage to step in front of the limelight. I don't value the opinion of hippies, and that's how I classify your group. You have no idea what I've had to go thru, to get to this point. I've already confronted the government, you have not. I learned from Zimmerman's mistakes, that's why I'm still here and working on a project that they fear (a lot more than yours). Why don't you add strong global encryption to freenet, and see what $16 billion a year buys us. I'd love for you to wake up to reality by dealing with the NSA. Go ahead, show me how to do it correctly! Oh wait, you haven't confronted that issue yet have you? We have different political views. A good businessman can get past that, and realize that pragmatism is superior to ideology. You would make for a lousy consultant. You don't have much business sense, or else you wouldn't be so religious about defending open source. You think you're the defender of freedom of speech, yet you live in America. I laugh at people like you. Why don't you go to South Africa, or Chechyna, and set and example for all of us? Procedures and methods exist to serve us, we do not serve them. If a procedure does not satisfy my requirements, I will write my own. I'm not a sheep. As for the peer review, that is coming. Remember, freenet was just the first announcement. What it all boils down to is what technology will succeed. I know that my views are mainstream, yours are to the left. Based upon the numbers, and the fact that my technology has a lot more promise than yours does (in my opinion), we will see who succeeds, wont we? Unlike the Gnutella crowd, the freenet crowd will always be welcome to join the MFS project. As for my design, do not read it since you disagree with the license. I wish you well in your venture, at least you have the courage to discuss these issues. Many others don't even bother. * josh PS: Do not borrow my technology unless you intend to follow the dream, which is an "open" dream. -----Original Message----- From: Ian Clarke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 9:05 PM To: Josh; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Moved to chat] MercuryFS << File: ATT00008.dat >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 05:46:58PM -0700, Josh wrote: > Is that all you have to say? A terminology issue? > Open source is a method, not a religion. This "terminology issue" actually betrays your complete lack of understanding of Open Source and the idealogy behind it. This in itself wouldn't be so bad if you hadn't chosen to describe your software as Open Source, even though you had imposed restrictions which are anethema to the Open Source movement. If I recall correctly, I brought this to your attention when you first contacted me, but you failed to heed my warning. Given this, some amount of public humiliation is inevitable, you are fortunate that it happened before a reasonably small audience on the development mailing list rather than in a much more public forum like Slashdot. > There is no reason why I can't do both to accomplish my goals. Go to > www.mercuryfs.net/license.htm for the current version. If you read the > license, you will probably find that it satisfies your requirements. As you now know, it certainly does not satisfy my requirements, nor does it satisfy the requirements of the Open Source Initiative. > Remember, my goal is for a unified single standard. That will take a bit of > management to achieve. And it also requires significant arrogance on your part to suppose that you will become that standard, particularly given the lack of peer review that your architecture has endured, and the onerous license that you propose to distribute it under. > I would be a real shame to pass us by because of terminology. Your lack of understanding of Open Source does not bode well for your ability to create a robust architecture. Others have offered some criticism of your actual design, personally I don't currently have time to pick through your paper. > PS: just because you have no respect for intellectual property doesn't mean > you should attempt to force this method onto others. If you don't want to > talk, that's fine. Here on Freenet we are big fans of peer review. Part of peer review is that you get dragged through the coals if you do or say something dumb (it has happened to most everyone). If you want to learn from this experience then you should listen to what people are saying, even if you dislike the tone in which they say it, and either disagree with it (explaining why - and be prepaired for a debate), or gracefully admit your mistake and ask that people provide further peer-review on your architecture. Ian. _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
