Re: [freenet-chat] Questions
Hi! We cannot enforce a limit, since people can always edit the source code, but Freenet 0.5 requires at least 101MB of disk space, and defaults to 256MB. The limit may be a bit lower in 0.7 because of smaller keys, or it may be quite a bit bigger (the test nodes had a hard-coded datastore size of 1GB for a while; now it is configurable). Re bandwidth, and fairness.. the main constraint is that if your node is really slow, e.g. because you have a low bandwidth limit, then nodes connected to your node will disconnect it in favour of "better" nodes. On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:28:46PM +0100, Martin Ottehall wrote: > Hi! > > Im doing a school thing about freenet and have some quiestions. > > Is there a minimum req. on how much space and bandwith you have to share? > Whats the connection between share and recive? (I share X and can then only > recive X, or what?) > More questions are to come. > > Thanks in Forehand! -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Questions
Hi! I´m doing a school thing about freenet and have some quiestions. Is there a minimum req. on how much space and bandwith you have to share? What´s the connection between share and recive? (I share X and can then only recive X, or what?) More questions are to come. Thanks in Forehand! ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] questions about freenet/i2p/entropy
Historically Freenet has focussed on document storage and retrieval, whereas I2P has focussed on real time connections between nodes. That's the obvious difference. I2P implements a form of onion routing to protect these connections; in I2P, you construct a 3 hop tunnel from your node to somewhere, using nodes from all over the network. Whereas freenet's routing is more heuristic, often taking 7 or more hops, and exclusively uses the routing table, pre-established connections, although it is important for new connections to be established from time to time. Both approaches have advantages, in both security and performance; they are complementary, for the time being. In terms of security, I2P and Freenet are completely different; I2P is a scalable mixnet, which is inherently harvestable, meaning that an attacker can quickly find all nodes, but in which it should be very hard to find the originator of a connection (this is however a topic of some dispute!). For Freenet to have really good anonymity, we will have to add a layer of "premix routing", meaning onion routing, a la I2P, but probably over our existing connections; this does not mean that Freenet's anonymity right now is rubbish, but various attacks are possible which we would like to prevent. It has been suggested to use I2P to do this, but there are some major problems with that for example harvestability. Freenet's anonymity as-is is probably worse than I2P's, but Freenet is known to scale in practice to at least 10,000 nodes, whereas I2P has maybe 300. Freenet 0.7 will have a scalable darknet F2F option, where each node only connects to those which are explicitly added as belonging to friends of the node operator; this can scale, because although I only connect to my friends, they connect to theirs, and you can span the globe pretty fast. The upshot of this is that it is not harvestable any more, and a whole variety of attacks become much harder and much less useful. This is intended for use in hostile environments, such as China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, where the internet is heavily filtered. China does not yet do harvesting of Freenet or I2P nodes, but it does block Freenet by other means (which rely on a misfeature which will also be eliminated in 0.7). Entropy, as far as I know, was a rip-off of Freenet. It even used FCP. :) It had more or less the same goals, but used home-grown crypto algorithms (which is *ALWAYS* a bad thing), and had a primitive routing algorithm which suggests it probably wouldn't have scaled. On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 08:20:41PM -0800, none none wrote: > Function-wise is I2P different from Freenet and > Entropy? If so how is it different? What are the pros > and cons of using either Freenet and entropy? (any > difference speed-wise?) Can I2P be used in conjuction > with Freenet or Entropy? If so how do I set it up? I > have done a little readingbut it was information > over-load. And please put it in layman terms.Is > entropy still in development? Because according to > this link: > http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anonymous_p2p1.htm > Entropy is no longer in development. thank you to all > that replies to this. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] questions about freenet/i2p/entropy
Function-wise is I2P different from Freenet and Entropy? If so how is it different? What are the pros and cons of using either Freenet and entropy? (any difference speed-wise?) Can I2P be used in conjuction with Freenet or Entropy? If so how do I set it up? I have done a little readingbut it was information over-load. And please put it in layman terms.Is entropy still in development? Because according to this link: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anonymous_p2p1.htm Entropy is no longer in development. thank you to all that replies to this. __ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:13:11PM -0400, Nick Tarleton wrote: > > Every new endeavour is worth pursuing. If you don't pursue your dreams > > because it might upset somebody, somewhere, at some point in the future, > > then you might as well lay down and let life pass you by. Millions of > > people went to war and gave their lives to preserve those freedoms - > > don't let their efforts be in vain. > A rousing speech, and something I'll try to take to heart. I'm not being > sarcastic. > > But having seen http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID=235, I think I may just try > this. Does anyone know more about this and what it would mean for a Freenet > client developer? That URL doesn't work for me. Is that the IAAL page? -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
On Friday 27 August 2004 02:42 pm, Kevin Steen wrote: > On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 18:19, Nick Tarleton wrote: > > While it may be paranoid, I didn't want to risk it AT ALL (in case I > > accidentally gave myself away, or some exploit was found in Freenet) > > because I KNOW that I cannot POSSIBLY defend myself from OR settle a > > major lawsuit. > > Most countries have legal aid to defend those who can't afford a > high-priced lawyer - to prevent rich corporations from suing the poor > into oblivion. I never thought of that. Still, I have reasons not to get sued (involving the words "minor" and "parents" and "kill me"). And I might not win. > Remember that, despite corporate efforts to convince everyone that they > are guilty until proven innocent, the opposite is actually still law in > most countries. I know, but one still has to defend oneself. > Every new endeavour is worth pursuing. If you don't pursue your dreams > because it might upset somebody, somewhere, at some point in the future, > then you might as well lay down and let life pass you by. Millions of > people went to war and gave their lives to preserve those freedoms - > don't let their efforts be in vain. A rousing speech, and something I'll try to take to heart. I'm not being sarcastic. But having seen http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID=235, I think I may just try this. Does anyone know more about this and what it would mean for a Freenet client developer? ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 18:19, Nick Tarleton wrote: > While it may be paranoid, I didn't want to risk it AT ALL (in case I accidentally > gave myself away, or some exploit was found in Freenet) because I KNOW that I cannot > POSSIBLY defend myself from OR settle a major lawsuit. Most countries have legal aid to defend those who can't afford a high-priced lawyer - to prevent rich corporations from suing the poor into oblivion. Remember that, despite corporate efforts to convince everyone that they are guilty until proven innocent, the opposite is actually still law in most countries. Every new endeavour is worth pursuing. If you don't pursue your dreams because it might upset somebody, somewhere, at some point in the future, then you might as well lay down and let life pass you by. Millions of people went to war and gave their lives to preserve those freedoms - don't let their efforts be in vain. -Kevin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
While it may be paranoid, I didn't want to risk it AT ALL (in case I accidentally gave myself away, or some exploit was found in Freenet) because I KNOW that I cannot POSSIBLY defend myself from OR settle a major lawsuit. -Original Message- From: Brian Dotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Aug 26, 2004 4:40 PM To: Nick Tarleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:16:00 -0400 (GMT-04:00), Nick Tarleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm contemplating writing a FUQID-like program for Linux/KDE, and I'd like to know a > couple of answers first: > > 1. Is there ANY CHANCE AT ALL that I could get in legal trouble, under current US > law, for creating and publishing a Freenet client? > 2. Approximately how soon is the change to fixed-size keys expected? Approximately > how much would this require changing in an existing client? > ___ > chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > Why not code the client and release it anonymously on freenet? I thought that was the entire point of freenet. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 01:07:21PM -0400, Nick Tarleton wrote: > Anyone who owns the copyright on something illegally distributed in Freenet. > Although I just realized, they couldn't prove it without seeing my datastore, for > which they would need a subpoena, which no judge would give them based only on the > fact that I run Freenet. And anyway, since I run a node on dialup (and so am > effectively transient), I probably wouldn't have any illegal material on my node > unless I request it. That last point is wrong. ALL nodes are now used to spread the por^Wdata and balance load. Nodes which don't accept requests for the network will not be very useful once the rest of the network realizes this; they will be disconnected from. > > -Original Message- > From: Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Aug 25, 2004 5:23 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer > > On 24 Aug 2004, at 18:24, Nick Tarleton wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2004 8:04 PM, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I hate to say it, but if you are that timid then I suggest you run a > >> mile from Freenet and anything like it. > > > > Indeed, it seems I should. Running a Freenet node could easily get one > > sued for contributory copyright infringement. > > I don't think so, who would sue you? > > Ian. > ___ > chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Fw: Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
It means I probably won't write it (I have plenty of other ideas to occupy my time), but may continue to use Freenet. -Original Message- From: Newsbyte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Aug 25, 2004 1:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer yes, well...does that mean you're going to write it, or not? >Anyone who owns the copyright on something illegally distributed in Freenet. Although >I just realized, they couldn't prove it without seeing my datastore, for which they >would need a subpoena, which no judge would give them based only on the fact that I >run Freenet. And anyway, since I run a node on dialup (and so am effectively >transient), I probably wouldn't have any illegal material on my node unless I request >it. -Original Message- From: Ian Clarke Sent: Aug 25, 2004 5:23 AM To: 'chat at freenetproject.org, chat at freenetproject.org Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer On 24 Aug 2004, at 18:24, Nick Tarleton wrote: > On Aug 23, 2004 8:04 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: >> I hate to say it, but if you are that timid then I suggest you run a >> mile from Freenet and anything like it. > > Indeed, it seems I should. Running a Freenet node could easily get one > sued for contributory copyright infringement. I don't think so, who would sue you? Ian. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
[freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
yes, well...does that mean you're going to write it, or not? >Anyone who owns the copyright on something illegally distributed in Freenet. Although I just realized, they couldn't prove it without seeing my datastore, for which they would need a subpoena, which no judge would give them based only on the fact that I run Freenet. And anyway, since I run a node on dialup (and so am effectively transient), I probably wouldn't have any illegal material on my node unless I request it. -Original Message- From: Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> Sent: Aug 25, 2004 5:23 AM To: 'chat at freenetproject.org, chat at freenetproject.org Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer On 24 Aug 2004, at 18:24, Nick Tarleton wrote: > On Aug 23, 2004 8:04 PM, Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> wrote: >> I hate to say it, but if you are that timid then I suggest you run a >> mile from Freenet and anything like it. > > Indeed, it seems I should. Running a Freenet node could easily get one > sued for contributory copyright infringement. I don't think so, who would sue you? Ian. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
Anyone who owns the copyright on something illegally distributed in Freenet. Although I just realized, they couldn't prove it without seeing my datastore, for which they would need a subpoena, which no judge would give them based only on the fact that I run Freenet. And anyway, since I run a node on dialup (and so am effectively transient), I probably wouldn't have any illegal material on my node unless I request it. -Original Message- From: Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Aug 25, 2004 5:23 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer On 24 Aug 2004, at 18:24, Nick Tarleton wrote: > On Aug 23, 2004 8:04 PM, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I hate to say it, but if you are that timid then I suggest you run a >> mile from Freenet and anything like it. > > Indeed, it seems I should. Running a Freenet node could easily get one > sued for contributory copyright infringement. I don't think so, who would sue you? Ian. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 24 Aug 2004, at 18:24, Nick Tarleton wrote: On Aug 23, 2004 8:04 PM, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hate to say it, but if you are that timid then I suggest you run a mile from Freenet and anything like it. Indeed, it seems I should. Running a Freenet node could easily get one sued for contributory copyright infringement. I don't think so, who would sue you? Ian. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFBLFqFQtgxRWSmsqwRAgwcAJ0eDy+8yXCLvShwDJq6BO32uVCE1wCeLK/o CNzIeKGijYqZuu77BWz5vRE= =QOCC -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
[freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
>Running a Freenet node could easily get one sued for contributory copyright infringement. >"Giving aid or comfort to copyright infringers", maybe. ermmm...the position of troll has already been taken... by me. ;-) ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
On Aug 23, 2004 8:11 PM, Newsbyte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe I'll have to wait on the INDUCE II act, though. "Giving aid or comfort to copyright infringers", maybe. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
On Aug 23, 2004 8:04 PM, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hate to say it, but if you are that timid then I suggest you run a > mile from Freenet and anything like it. Indeed, it seems I should. Running a Freenet node could easily get one sued for contributory copyright infringement. (It's not "timidity" or litigiophobia, just that I probably don't have the resources to either defend myself OR settle.) > Unfortunately the real damage of the Induce Act would likely occur > during private meetings between entrepreneurs and their potential > investors, rather than in public court proceedings. It won't be easy > for the public to see that they have been denied the next iPod if they > never knew that it might have existed in the first place. Good point. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
[freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
"In short "yes", just as the answer to "Is there ANY CHANCE AT ALL that I could get struck by lightening?" would also be "yes". Could you get sued? Yes. Could they win the suit? Maybe, but the recent 9th Circuit Court ruling in the Grokster case makes this less likely." Don't forget to give me a sign when they make it illegal to create a wiki about Freenet. ;-) Maybe I'll have to wait on the INDUCE II act, though. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 07:23:05PM -0400, Nick Tarleton wrote: > On Monday 23 August 2004 04:05 pm, Ian Clarke wrote: > > On 23 Aug 2004, at 19:16, Nick Tarleton wrote: > > > I'm contemplating writing a FUQID-like program for Linux/KDE, and I'd > > > like to know a couple of answers first: > > > > > > 1. Is there ANY CHANCE AT ALL that I could get in legal trouble, under > > > current US law, for creating and publishing a Freenet client? > > > > In short "yes", just as the answer to "Is there ANY CHANCE AT ALL that > > I could get struck by lightening?" would also be "yes". Could you get > > sued? Yes. Could they win the suit? Maybe, but the recent 9th > > Circuit Court ruling in the Grokster case makes this less likely. > > > > The best advice I can give is to read this: > > > >http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_copyright_wp.php > > Uh, never mind. It seems I would have no plausible deniability, as everyone > knows a lot (most?) of the large file traffic on Freenet is in violation of > copyright. Even if this would never hold up in court, I don't want to risk > even getting a lawsuit threat/C&D letter. Everyone knows most of the files shared by Grokster users were illegal. Right? But they won the case! So the situation is clearly not that simple. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 24 Aug 2004, at 00:23, Nick Tarleton wrote: On Monday 23 August 2004 04:05 pm, Ian Clarke wrote: On 23 Aug 2004, at 19:16, Nick Tarleton wrote: I'm contemplating writing a FUQID-like program for Linux/KDE, and I'd like to know a couple of answers first: 1. Is there ANY CHANCE AT ALL that I could get in legal trouble, under current US law, for creating and publishing a Freenet client? In short "yes", just as the answer to "Is there ANY CHANCE AT ALL that I could get struck by lightening?" would also be "yes". Could you get sued? Yes. Could they win the suit? Maybe, but the recent 9th Circuit Court ruling in the Grokster case makes this less likely. The best advice I can give is to read this: http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_copyright_wp.php Uh, never mind. It seems I would have no plausible deniability, as everyone knows a lot (most?) of the large file traffic on Freenet is in violation of copyright. You might have, but you certainly don't after saying that on a public mailing list. Even if this would never hold up in court, I don't want to risk even getting a lawsuit threat/C&D letter. I hate to say it, but if you are that timid then I suggest you run a mile from Freenet and anything like it. (BTW, I don't think the INDUCE Act will ever pass, and if it did, it wouldn't last long - can you imagine what The Public would think if MP3 player makers - big companies, not Jon Johansens - were hauled to court en masse?) Unfortunately the real damage of the Induce Act would likely occur during private meetings between entrepreneurs and their potential investors, rather than in public court proceedings. It won't be easy for the public to see that they have been denied the next iPod if they never knew that it might have existed in the first place. Ian. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFBKoX9QtgxRWSmsqwRAj5uAJ9dI8ys2M6nTc822t49H3OLlmKFEACfbm94 2LVPYi6MpolnwQN29Jk9f3o= =G66h -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
On Monday 23 August 2004 04:05 pm, Ian Clarke wrote: > On 23 Aug 2004, at 19:16, Nick Tarleton wrote: > > I'm contemplating writing a FUQID-like program for Linux/KDE, and I'd > > like to know a couple of answers first: > > > > 1. Is there ANY CHANCE AT ALL that I could get in legal trouble, under > > current US law, for creating and publishing a Freenet client? > > In short "yes", just as the answer to "Is there ANY CHANCE AT ALL that > I could get struck by lightening?" would also be "yes". Could you get > sued? Yes. Could they win the suit? Maybe, but the recent 9th > Circuit Court ruling in the Grokster case makes this less likely. > > The best advice I can give is to read this: > >http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_copyright_wp.php Uh, never mind. It seems I would have no plausible deniability, as everyone knows a lot (most?) of the large file traffic on Freenet is in violation of copyright. Even if this would never hold up in court, I don't want to risk even getting a lawsuit threat/C&D letter. (BTW, I don't think the INDUCE Act will ever pass, and if it did, it wouldn't last long - can you imagine what The Public would think if MP3 player makers - big companies, not Jon Johansens - were hauled to court en masse?) ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23 Aug 2004, at 19:16, Nick Tarleton wrote: I'm contemplating writing a FUQID-like program for Linux/KDE, and I'd like to know a couple of answers first: 1. Is there ANY CHANCE AT ALL that I could get in legal trouble, under current US law, for creating and publishing a Freenet client? In short "yes", just as the answer to "Is there ANY CHANCE AT ALL that I could get struck by lightening?" would also be "yes". Could you get sued? Yes. Could they win the suit? Maybe, but the recent 9th Circuit Court ruling in the Grokster case makes this less likely. The best advice I can give is to read this: http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_copyright_wp.php Then, if you are *really* feeling enthusiastic, read the Grokster ruling: http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/ 20040819_mgm_v_grokster_decision.pdf And then, before you get too excited, read about the Induce Act: http://techlawadvisor.com/induce/ 2. Approximately how soon is the change to fixed-size keys expected? Approximately how much would this require changing in an existing client? You should direct this question to the development mailing list, Matthew is the person to answer it (he also reads this mailing list, but I suspect you will catch his attention more easily on devl, and this question is on-topic for that mailing list). Ian. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFBKk4KQtgxRWSmsqwRAp5BAJ9ZhCjp41ssKm8IAEM52PoAUKTGzgCfT01L spzUgeBzN5BJ59k3nMto9AA= =QCYb -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
[freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
I'm contemplating writing a FUQID-like program for Linux/KDE, and I'd like to know a couple of answers first: 1. Is there ANY CHANCE AT ALL that I could get in legal trouble, under current US law, for creating and publishing a Freenet client? 2. Approximately how soon is the change to fixed-size keys expected? Approximately how much would this require changing in an existing client? ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
