[freenet-support] Freenet 0.7 build 978
Freenet 0.7 build 979 is now available. It fixes a bug affecting FCP. Sorry folks. Please upgrade. On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:41:05PM +0100, toad wrote: > Freenet 0.7 build 978 is now available. Please upgrade. Changelog: > - Some (hopefully minor) crypto fixes relating to DSA. > - Some refactoring. > - Fixes to probe requests. (These are a way to probe the keyspace > distribution and the size of the network). > - Better sanity checking for throttle.dat (Fixes some nodes becoming > largely comatose after their throttle data was corrupted making them > think that requests use 10^14 bytes each). > - Complain if somebody tries to insert to (for example) > KSK at blah/blah/blah - slashes indicate a manifest or container lookup. > - Make failure to load native FEC libraries obvious. (We haven't fixed > the bug yet but at least it's out in the open now. We are aware of > the errors relating to native FEC not loading). > > The new code should be available via the auto-updater soon. (Also via > the update scripts and jars on downloads.freenetproject.org, but we > strongly recommend you use the auto-updater, and if it doesn't work, > please tell us). > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe -- 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/support/attachments/20060927/7d1a2784/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-support] Freenet 0.7 build 978
Freenet 0.7 build 978 is now available. Please upgrade. Changelog: - Some (hopefully minor) crypto fixes relating to DSA. - Some refactoring. - Fixes to probe requests. (These are a way to probe the keyspace distribution and the size of the network). - Better sanity checking for throttle.dat (Fixes some nodes becoming largely comatose after their throttle data was corrupted making them think that requests use 10^14 bytes each). - Complain if somebody tries to insert to (for example) KSK at blah/blah/blah - slashes indicate a manifest or container lookup. - Make failure to load native FEC libraries obvious. (We haven't fixed the bug yet but at least it's out in the open now. We are aware of the errors relating to native FEC not loading). The new code should be available via the auto-updater soon. (Also via the update scripts and jars on downloads.freenetproject.org, but we strongly recommend you use the auto-updater, and if it doesn't work, please tell us). -- 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/support/attachments/20060927/2c78b42c/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-support] Explain how to use freenet?
All, I have installed all the freenet software, but when I open the homepage I don't get any connection because no peers are found. Could someone explain me [very easy/simple] please how to make a connection? How can I find another peer when this is my first login? On the www site: http://freenetproject.org/download.html you stated: visit #freenet-refs on irc.freenode.net. My question: how can I connect to this site? Thanks in advantage. Kind regards, Ellerd Beijert -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060927/7d949861/attachment.html>
[freenet-support] Explain how to use freenet?
Volodya wrote: > Beijert, Ellerd E (Ellerd) wrote: >> >> All, >> >> I have installed all the freenet software, but when I open the homepage >> I don?t get any connection because no peers are found. Could someone >> explain me [very easy/simple] please how to make a connection? How can I >> find another peer when this is my first login? >> >> >> >> On the www site: http://freenetproject.org/download.html you stated: >> visit #freenet-refs on irc.freenode.net. My question: how can I connect >> to this site? >> >> >> >> Thanks in advantage. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> Ellerd Beijert > > 1. See if some of your friends (from real life or internet) already run > freenet, give them > your ref (can be found at http://localhost:/darknet/) and get their ref > (must be input > into the same page). After the exchange is complete you'll be connected to > them. > 2. Go to #freenet-refs on FreeNode and ask politely to exchange refs with > somebody. > > 1 is *much more secure* while 2 can be done by everybody. > > - Volodya And i forgot... you access #freenet-refs by using an IRC client. x-chat is a good choice for any operating system (if you don't have an operating system and are running Windows use mIRC). -- http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Voice of Freedom, Radical Podcast http://freeselfdefence.info/ Self-defence wiki "None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin
[freenet-support] Explain how to use freenet?
Beijert, Ellerd E (Ellerd) wrote: > > > All, > > I have installed all the freenet software, but when I open the homepage > I don?t get any connection because no peers are found. Could someone > explain me [very easy/simple] please how to make a connection? How can I > find another peer when this is my first login? > > > > On the www site: http://freenetproject.org/download.html you stated: > visit #freenet-refs on irc.freenode.net. My question: how can I connect > to this site? > > > > Thanks in advantage. > > Kind regards, > > > > Ellerd Beijert 1. See if some of your friends (from real life or internet) already run freenet, give them your ref (can be found at http://localhost:/darknet/) and get their ref (must be input into the same page). After the exchange is complete you'll be connected to them. 2. Go to #freenet-refs on FreeNode and ask politely to exchange refs with somebody. 1 is *much more secure* while 2 can be done by everybody. - Volodya -- http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Voice of Freedom, Radical Podcast http://freeselfdefence.info/ Self-defence wiki "None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7 build 978
Freenet 0.7 build 979 is now available. It fixes a bug affecting FCP. Sorry folks. Please upgrade. On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:41:05PM +0100, toad wrote: > Freenet 0.7 build 978 is now available. Please upgrade. Changelog: > - Some (hopefully minor) crypto fixes relating to DSA. > - Some refactoring. > - Fixes to probe requests. (These are a way to probe the keyspace > distribution and the size of the network). > - Better sanity checking for throttle.dat (Fixes some nodes becoming > largely comatose after their throttle data was corrupted making them > think that requests use 10^14 bytes each). > - Complain if somebody tries to insert to (for example) > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/blah/blah - slashes indicate a manifest or container > lookup. > - Make failure to load native FEC libraries obvious. (We haven't fixed > the bug yet but at least it's out in the open now. We are aware of > the errors relating to native FEC not loading). > > The new code should be available via the auto-updater soon. (Also via > the update scripts and jars on downloads.freenetproject.org, but we > strongly recommend you use the auto-updater, and if it doesn't work, > please tell us). > ___ > Support mailing list > Support@freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Freenet 0.7 build 978
Freenet 0.7 build 978 is now available. Please upgrade. Changelog: - Some (hopefully minor) crypto fixes relating to DSA. - Some refactoring. - Fixes to probe requests. (These are a way to probe the keyspace distribution and the size of the network). - Better sanity checking for throttle.dat (Fixes some nodes becoming largely comatose after their throttle data was corrupted making them think that requests use 10^14 bytes each). - Complain if somebody tries to insert to (for example) [EMAIL PROTECTED]/blah/blah - slashes indicate a manifest or container lookup. - Make failure to load native FEC libraries obvious. (We haven't fixed the bug yet but at least it's out in the open now. We are aware of the errors relating to native FEC not loading). The new code should be available via the auto-updater soon. (Also via the update scripts and jars on downloads.freenetproject.org, but we strongly recommend you use the auto-updater, and if it doesn't work, please tell us). signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Licensing was Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:22:51AM -0400, Ken Snider wrote: > Brandon Low wrote: > >Well, it's moot any way, since I have no applicable code, but you are > >right, it doesn't impact Freenet the same way that it does Linux, my > >concern is more one of compatibility with GPL2 distributions as > >discussed in the linux kernel position statement. > > > >The GPL3, as the GPL2 is often accused of being, but is not in practice, > >is a viral license, that is that there are some cases in which as > >written, it would require a user of the license to release _other_ > >property under a compatible license. > > This is untrue, and a serious misunderstanding of GPLv3. The fact that it > is being propagated as FUD frankly astounds me. There's a lot of FUD around. There's a lot of FUD about darknet being inherently insecure, for example. :( > > From the FSF's clarification (http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3-clarification): > > === > > 2. In order to honor freedom 0, your freedom to run the program as you > wish, a free software license may not contain "use restrictions" that would > restrict what you can do with it. > > Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no use restrictions, > and the final version won't either. > > GPLv3 will prohibit certain distribution practices which restrict users' > freedom to modify the code. We hope this policy will thwart the ways some > companies wish to "use" free software -- namely, distributing it to you > while controlling what you can do with it. This policy is not a "use > restriction": it doesn't restrict how they, or you, can run the program; it > doesn't restrict what they, or you, can make the program do. Rather it > ensures you, as a user, are as free as they are. > > Contrary to what some have said, GPLv3 will not cause a company to > "lose its entire [software] patent portfolio". It simply says that if > someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a GPL-covered program to > do XYZ, he can't sue the program's subsequent users, redistributors and > improvers for doing XYZ with their own versions of that program. This has > no effect on other patents which that program does not implement. > > Software patents attack the freedom of all software developers and > users; their only legitimate use is to deter aggression using software > patents. Therefore, if we could abolish every entity's entire portfolio of > software patents tomorrow, we would jump at the chance. But it isn't > possible for a software license such as the GNU GPL to achieve such a > result. > > We do, however, hope that GPL v3 can solve a part of the patent > problem. The FSF is now negotiating with organizations holding substantial > patent inventories, trying to mediate between their conflicting "extreme" > positions. We hope to work out the precise details of the explicit patent > license so as to free software developers from patent aggression under a > substantial fraction of software patents. To fully protect software > developers and users from software patents will, however, require changes > in patent law. > > === > > --Ken. > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > -- 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/support/attachments/20060927/54584fba/attachment.pgp>
Licensing was Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 07:49:30PM -0500, Brandon Low wrote: > Well, it's moot any way, since I have no applicable code, but you are > right, it doesn't impact Freenet the same way that it does Linux, my > concern is more one of compatibility with GPL2 distributions as > discussed in the linux kernel position statement. It's not GPL2-incompatible until we make it exclusively GPL3+. Making it GPL2+ doesn't make it automatically GPL3+; you can still use it as GPL2. It does mean that the decision can be taken by consensus instead of unanymity, and in fact anyone who wants to fork it as GPL2 only or GPL3 only can do so. And GPL3 is compatible with a lot more than GPL2 is, because 90%+ of GPL code out there is "GPL 2 or later". Dijjer is, for example (we use a load of Dijjer code for messages etc). > > The GPL3, as the GPL2 is often accused of being, but is not in practice, > is a viral license, that is that there are some cases in which as > written, it would require a user of the license to release _other_ > property under a compatible license. This is a significant problem, and > as such, I think that specifying a specific version of the GPL to > license Freenet under would be a superior position. It actually seems > like this is what you intend any way since you state that there would be > no automatic upgrade to GPL3 but only a manual upgrade process. If > that's the case, why not specific GPL2 explicitly at this time? There is no automatic upgrade, but having the permission of all copyright holders means we can do the upgrade later on, if necessary, without requiring unanymity; it also means that all new authors will have to deal with the fact that it is "GPL 2 or later" i.e. we won't need to ask their permission later on. I disagree about "other property". If you link GPL code with anything else and distribute the result then the anything else must be GPL compatible. Right now, for example, ASL2 code isn't strictly compatible with "GPL 2 only". The only "other property" that the GPL3 requires you release that the GPL2 doesn't is: - Any patents required to use the software (in GPL2 you still had to do this under US law but in GPL3 it's explicit) - Any keys required to use modified versions of the software, if it's specifically designed to be run on a locked-down device which will only run signed code. I don't have a problem with either of those restrictions. GPL3 does however allow for a few other optional clauses. One of them provides for patent license reciprocity. I don't have a problem with that one either frankly and I don't see why you do. -- 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/support/attachments/20060927/69b62ca8/attachment.pgp>
Re: [freenet-support] Explain how to use freenet?
Volodya wrote: > Beijert, Ellerd E (Ellerd) wrote: >> >> All, >> >> I have installed all the freenet software, but when I open the homepage >> I don’t get any connection because no peers are found. Could someone >> explain me [very easy/simple] please how to make a connection? How can I >> find another peer when this is my first login? >> >> >> >> On the www site: http://freenetproject.org/download.html you stated: >> visit #freenet-refs on irc.freenode.net. My question: how can I connect >> to this site? >> >> >> >> Thanks in advantage. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> Ellerd Beijert > > 1. See if some of your friends (from real life or internet) already run > freenet, give them > your ref (can be found at http://localhost:/darknet/) and get their ref > (must be input > into the same page). After the exchange is complete you'll be connected to > them. > 2. Go to #freenet-refs on FreeNode and ask politely to exchange refs with > somebody. > > 1 is *much more secure* while 2 can be done by everybody. > > - Volodya And i forgot... you access #freenet-refs by using an IRC client. x-chat is a good choice for any operating system (if you don't have an operating system and are running Windows use mIRC). -- http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Voice of Freedom, Radical Podcast http://freeselfdefence.info/ Self-defence wiki "None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Explain how to use freenet?
Beijert, Ellerd E (Ellerd) wrote: > > > All, > > I have installed all the freenet software, but when I open the homepage > I don’t get any connection because no peers are found. Could someone > explain me [very easy/simple] please how to make a connection? How can I > find another peer when this is my first login? > > > > On the www site: http://freenetproject.org/download.html you stated: > visit #freenet-refs on irc.freenode.net. My question: how can I connect > to this site? > > > > Thanks in advantage. > > Kind regards, > > > > Ellerd Beijert 1. See if some of your friends (from real life or internet) already run freenet, give them your ref (can be found at http://localhost:/darknet/) and get their ref (must be input into the same page). After the exchange is complete you'll be connected to them. 2. Go to #freenet-refs on FreeNode and ask politely to exchange refs with somebody. 1 is *much more secure* while 2 can be done by everybody. - Volodya -- http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Voice of Freedom, Radical Podcast http://freeselfdefence.info/ Self-defence wiki "None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Explain how to use freenet?
All, I have installed all the freenet software, but when I open the homepage I don’t get any connection because no peers are found. Could someone explain me [very easy/simple] please how to make a connection? How can I find another peer when this is my first login? On the www site: http://freenetproject.org/download.html you stated: visit #freenet-refs on irc.freenode.net. My question: how can I connect to this site? Thanks in advantage. Kind regards, Ellerd Beijert ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Licensing was Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06
I needed to reread the license as I had clearly gotten some mistaken ideas about its actual text from reading the FUD. The clause that restricts the uses of technology to prevent the free copying of object codes still concerns me as it pertains to system software, as much system software, including system software that I've developed in my professional life could be viewed a violating this clause. This does not however give reason for concern with Freenet, so my objection to licensing _Freenet_ under an upgradeable license is withdrawn. --Brandon On 2006-09-27 (Wed) at 15:07:53 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 07:49:30PM -0500, Brandon Low wrote: > > Well, it's moot any way, since I have no applicable code, but you are > > right, it doesn't impact Freenet the same way that it does Linux, my > > concern is more one of compatibility with GPL2 distributions as > > discussed in the linux kernel position statement. > > It's not GPL2-incompatible until we make it exclusively GPL3+. Making it > GPL2+ doesn't make it automatically GPL3+; you can still use it as GPL2. > It does mean that the decision can be taken by consensus instead of > unanymity, and in fact anyone who wants to fork it as GPL2 only or GPL3 > only can do so. And GPL3 is compatible with a lot more than GPL2 is, > because 90%+ of GPL code out there is "GPL 2 or later". Dijjer is, for > example (we use a load of Dijjer code for messages etc). > > > > The GPL3, as the GPL2 is often accused of being, but is not in practice, > > is a viral license, that is that there are some cases in which as > > written, it would require a user of the license to release _other_ > > property under a compatible license. This is a significant problem, and > > as such, I think that specifying a specific version of the GPL to > > license Freenet under would be a superior position. It actually seems > > like this is what you intend any way since you state that there would be > > no automatic upgrade to GPL3 but only a manual upgrade process. If > > that's the case, why not specific GPL2 explicitly at this time? > > There is no automatic upgrade, but having the permission of all > copyright holders means we can do the upgrade later on, if necessary, > without requiring unanymity; it also means that all new authors will > have to deal with the fact that it is "GPL 2 or later" i.e. we won't > need to ask their permission later on. > > I disagree about "other property". If you link GPL code with anything > else and distribute the result then the anything else must be GPL > compatible. Right now, for example, ASL2 code isn't strictly compatible > with "GPL 2 only". > > The only "other property" that the GPL3 requires you release that the > GPL2 doesn't is: > - Any patents required to use the software (in GPL2 you still had to do > this under US law but in GPL3 it's explicit) > - Any keys required to use modified versions of the software, if it's > specifically designed to be run on a locked-down device which will > only run signed code. > > I don't have a problem with either of those restrictions. > > GPL3 does however allow for a few other optional clauses. One of them > provides for patent license reciprocity. I don't have a problem with > that one either frankly and I don't see why you do. > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: Licensing was Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06
I needed to reread the license as I had clearly gotten some mistaken ideas about its actual text from reading the FUD. The clause that restricts the uses of technology to prevent the free copying of object codes still concerns me as it pertains to system software, as much system software, including system software that I've developed in my professional life could be viewed a violating this clause. This does not however give reason for concern with Freenet, so my objection to licensing _Freenet_ under an upgradeable license is withdrawn. --Brandon On 2006-09-27 (Wed) at 15:07:53 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 07:49:30PM -0500, Brandon Low wrote: > > Well, it's moot any way, since I have no applicable code, but you are > > right, it doesn't impact Freenet the same way that it does Linux, my > > concern is more one of compatibility with GPL2 distributions as > > discussed in the linux kernel position statement. > > It's not GPL2-incompatible until we make it exclusively GPL3+. Making it > GPL2+ doesn't make it automatically GPL3+; you can still use it as GPL2. > It does mean that the decision can be taken by consensus instead of > unanymity, and in fact anyone who wants to fork it as GPL2 only or GPL3 > only can do so. And GPL3 is compatible with a lot more than GPL2 is, > because 90%+ of GPL code out there is "GPL 2 or later". Dijjer is, for > example (we use a load of Dijjer code for messages etc). > > > > The GPL3, as the GPL2 is often accused of being, but is not in practice, > > is a viral license, that is that there are some cases in which as > > written, it would require a user of the license to release _other_ > > property under a compatible license. This is a significant problem, and > > as such, I think that specifying a specific version of the GPL to > > license Freenet under would be a superior position. It actually seems > > like this is what you intend any way since you state that there would be > > no automatic upgrade to GPL3 but only a manual upgrade process. If > > that's the case, why not specific GPL2 explicitly at this time? > > There is no automatic upgrade, but having the permission of all > copyright holders means we can do the upgrade later on, if necessary, > without requiring unanymity; it also means that all new authors will > have to deal with the fact that it is "GPL 2 or later" i.e. we won't > need to ask their permission later on. > > I disagree about "other property". If you link GPL code with anything > else and distribute the result then the anything else must be GPL > compatible. Right now, for example, ASL2 code isn't strictly compatible > with "GPL 2 only". > > The only "other property" that the GPL3 requires you release that the > GPL2 doesn't is: > - Any patents required to use the software (in GPL2 you still had to do > this under US law but in GPL3 it's explicit) > - Any keys required to use modified versions of the software, if it's > specifically designed to be run on a locked-down device which will > only run signed code. > > I don't have a problem with either of those restrictions. > > GPL3 does however allow for a few other optional clauses. One of them > provides for patent license reciprocity. I don't have a problem with > that one either frankly and I don't see why you do. > ___ > Support mailing list > Support@freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing was Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:22:51AM -0400, Ken Snider wrote: > Brandon Low wrote: > >Well, it's moot any way, since I have no applicable code, but you are > >right, it doesn't impact Freenet the same way that it does Linux, my > >concern is more one of compatibility with GPL2 distributions as > >discussed in the linux kernel position statement. > > > >The GPL3, as the GPL2 is often accused of being, but is not in practice, > >is a viral license, that is that there are some cases in which as > >written, it would require a user of the license to release _other_ > >property under a compatible license. > > This is untrue, and a serious misunderstanding of GPLv3. The fact that it > is being propagated as FUD frankly astounds me. There's a lot of FUD around. There's a lot of FUD about darknet being inherently insecure, for example. :( > > From the FSF's clarification (http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3-clarification): > > === > > 2. In order to honor freedom 0, your freedom to run the program as you > wish, a free software license may not contain "use restrictions" that would > restrict what you can do with it. > > Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no use restrictions, > and the final version won't either. > > GPLv3 will prohibit certain distribution practices which restrict users' > freedom to modify the code. We hope this policy will thwart the ways some > companies wish to "use" free software -- namely, distributing it to you > while controlling what you can do with it. This policy is not a "use > restriction": it doesn't restrict how they, or you, can run the program; it > doesn't restrict what they, or you, can make the program do. Rather it > ensures you, as a user, are as free as they are. > > Contrary to what some have said, GPLv3 will not cause a company to > "lose its entire [software] patent portfolio". It simply says that if > someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a GPL-covered program to > do XYZ, he can't sue the program's subsequent users, redistributors and > improvers for doing XYZ with their own versions of that program. This has > no effect on other patents which that program does not implement. > > Software patents attack the freedom of all software developers and > users; their only legitimate use is to deter aggression using software > patents. Therefore, if we could abolish every entity's entire portfolio of > software patents tomorrow, we would jump at the chance. But it isn't > possible for a software license such as the GNU GPL to achieve such a > result. > > We do, however, hope that GPL v3 can solve a part of the patent > problem. The FSF is now negotiating with organizations holding substantial > patent inventories, trying to mediate between their conflicting "extreme" > positions. We hope to work out the precise details of the explicit patent > license so as to free software developers from patent aggression under a > substantial fraction of software patents. To fully protect software > developers and users from software patents will, however, require changes > in patent law. > > === > > --Ken. > ___ > Support mailing list > Support@freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing was Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 07:49:30PM -0500, Brandon Low wrote: > Well, it's moot any way, since I have no applicable code, but you are > right, it doesn't impact Freenet the same way that it does Linux, my > concern is more one of compatibility with GPL2 distributions as > discussed in the linux kernel position statement. It's not GPL2-incompatible until we make it exclusively GPL3+. Making it GPL2+ doesn't make it automatically GPL3+; you can still use it as GPL2. It does mean that the decision can be taken by consensus instead of unanymity, and in fact anyone who wants to fork it as GPL2 only or GPL3 only can do so. And GPL3 is compatible with a lot more than GPL2 is, because 90%+ of GPL code out there is "GPL 2 or later". Dijjer is, for example (we use a load of Dijjer code for messages etc). > > The GPL3, as the GPL2 is often accused of being, but is not in practice, > is a viral license, that is that there are some cases in which as > written, it would require a user of the license to release _other_ > property under a compatible license. This is a significant problem, and > as such, I think that specifying a specific version of the GPL to > license Freenet under would be a superior position. It actually seems > like this is what you intend any way since you state that there would be > no automatic upgrade to GPL3 but only a manual upgrade process. If > that's the case, why not specific GPL2 explicitly at this time? There is no automatic upgrade, but having the permission of all copyright holders means we can do the upgrade later on, if necessary, without requiring unanymity; it also means that all new authors will have to deal with the fact that it is "GPL 2 or later" i.e. we won't need to ask their permission later on. I disagree about "other property". If you link GPL code with anything else and distribute the result then the anything else must be GPL compatible. Right now, for example, ASL2 code isn't strictly compatible with "GPL 2 only". The only "other property" that the GPL3 requires you release that the GPL2 doesn't is: - Any patents required to use the software (in GPL2 you still had to do this under US law but in GPL3 it's explicit) - Any keys required to use modified versions of the software, if it's specifically designed to be run on a locked-down device which will only run signed code. I don't have a problem with either of those restrictions. GPL3 does however allow for a few other optional clauses. One of them provides for patent license reciprocity. I don't have a problem with that one either frankly and I don't see why you do. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Licensing was Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06
a 48-hour period, my node shows 498 node locations seen. However, a > > different means of estimating network size, the new PROBEALL: function on > > the console (telnet 127.0.0.1 2323, type PROBEALL:, then tail -f > > wrapper.log), shows 127 nodes online at a given instant. The probe > > function may be buggy, or we may have very high network churn, as people > > install freenet, try it out, and uninstall it. > > > > 6. Client layer, and content. > > > > There remain a number of major changes that need to be done to the > > client layer, for example multi-container freesite inserts. However, > > there are 154 sites on The Public Index, and there are 3 actively > > updated indexes including TPI (which is good but can't be included by > > default as it is publicly writable). That's against around 440 sites on > > TFE a while ago, on the 0.5 network. Most of the client layer is ready; > > for example, there is only one significant known issue with the content > > filter now. There are of course more things to do, but most of them are > > not vital for 0.7. > > > > 7. Other changes > > > > Several major changes have been made in the last few months. STUN > > support has been added, so the node should be able to auto-detect its IP > > address most of the time even if it is behind a NAT. The datastore has > > been split into a long-term store and a short-term cache. Inserts of > > single files resume automatically on node restart. Splitfiles heal > > themselves. And there have been minor improvements to routing and load > > balancing, although for the latter to really fly we need to complete > > mrogers' work. And many bugfixes. All since July, when Ian last > > published a status report. > > > > 7. Future priorities, and alpha? > > > > TODO: > > - More bug fixes. (There are *always* more bugs. A lot of what we've > > been doing for the last several months have been bug fixes and minor > > features; if you haven't tried freenet for a while try it again). > > - STS. (Better link encryption; major progress towards this already, > > thanks to nextgens). > > - Multi-container freesites. (Big freesites currently have problems > > because only the first 2MB is containerised). > > - Contact the last few authors somehow and change the license. > > - Low-level congestion control changes (when mrogers writes them up). > > - High-level load limiting (when mrogers has simulated it and finalized > > the design). > > - Opennet. > > > > We should seriously think about putting out another alpha in the > > reasonably near future, but maybe we should wait until load limiting has > > been sorted out? > > > > > ___ > > Support mailing list > > Support at freenetproject.org > > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > > Unsubscribe at > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > -- 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/support/attachments/20060927/0cf10c58/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06
to. An opennet is far easier to attack, because the attacker can harvest all nodes, then connect to all nodes, not necessarily all at once, and observe each one. Freenet 0.8 will have "premix routing", a layer of onion routing before we start the request. This probably will not be implemented for opennet, because there is little point. An attacker would simply pretend to be many nodes, and take over your routing table. So, despite "common sense", and despite the seemingly deliberate propaganda campaign by certain individuals against darknet, we need to: a) implement opennet AND b) give people every reason to move from pure opennet to hybrid opennet/darknet to pure darknet, by adding connections to their friends. Thus, we get a large network with opennet, and then people discover that their friends are already on freenet, and connect to them. In the long term we will have both a large opennet and a large darknet. How do we accomplish b)? 1) Education. See above: Darknet is far more secure than opennet. 2) Preferential routing. Your node should prefer to route queries from your darknet peers - your friends - than for random opennet nodes. (This needs to be simulated, but in principle appears sound). 3) Making it easy. Node reference files now end in .fref. Such files are automatically added to the node's routing table when you double click on them (the other side must also add yours), in Windows. There is a list, darknet-tools, for the development of IRC client plugins and so on, although nobody seems interested in it at the moment. So in conclusion: - We need opennet to get users. - We need opennet users to move to darknet. - In the long term we need the darknet to be bigger than the opennet. 5. Network size. Over a 48-hour period, my node shows 498 node locations seen. However, a different means of estimating network size, the new PROBEALL: function on the console (telnet 127.0.0.1 2323, type PROBEALL:, then tail -f wrapper.log), shows 127 nodes online at a given instant. The probe function may be buggy, or we may have very high network churn, as people install freenet, try it out, and uninstall it. 6. Client layer, and content. There remain a number of major changes that need to be done to the client layer, for example multi-container freesite inserts. However, there are 154 sites on The Public Index, and there are 3 actively updated indexes including TPI (which is good but can't be included by default as it is publicly writable). That's against around 440 sites on TFE a while ago, on the 0.5 network. Most of the client layer is ready; for example, there is only one significant known issue with the content filter now. There are of course more things to do, but most of them are not vital for 0.7. 7. Other changes Several major changes have been made in the last few months. STUN support has been added, so the node should be able to auto-detect its IP address most of the time even if it is behind a NAT. The datastore has been split into a long-term store and a short-term cache. Inserts of single files resume automatically on node restart. Splitfiles heal themselves. And there have been minor improvements to routing and load balancing, although for the latter to really fly we need to complete mrogers' work. And many bugfixes. All since July, when Ian last published a status report. 7. Future priorities, and alpha? TODO: - More bug fixes. (There are *always* more bugs. A lot of what we've been doing for the last several months have been bug fixes and minor features; if you haven't tried freenet for a while try it again). - STS. (Better link encryption; major progress towards this already, thanks to nextgens). - Multi-container freesites. (Big freesites currently have problems because only the first 2MB is containerised). - Contact the last few authors somehow and change the license. - Low-level congestion control changes (when mrogers writes them up). - High-level load limiting (when mrogers has simulated it and finalized the design). - Opennet. We should seriously think about putting out another alpha in the reasonably near future, but maybe we should wait until load limiting has been sorted out? -- 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/support/attachments/20060927/f7ccdf01/attachment.pgp>
Licensing was Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06
Brandon Low wrote: > Well, it's moot any way, since I have no applicable code, but you are > right, it doesn't impact Freenet the same way that it does Linux, my > concern is more one of compatibility with GPL2 distributions as > discussed in the linux kernel position statement. > > The GPL3, as the GPL2 is often accused of being, but is not in practice, > is a viral license, that is that there are some cases in which as > written, it would require a user of the license to release _other_ > property under a compatible license. This is untrue, and a serious misunderstanding of GPLv3. The fact that it is being propagated as FUD frankly astounds me. From the FSF's clarification (http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3-clarification): === 2. In order to honor freedom 0, your freedom to run the program as you wish, a free software license may not contain "use restrictions" that would restrict what you can do with it. Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no use restrictions, and the final version won't either. GPLv3 will prohibit certain distribution practices which restrict users' freedom to modify the code. We hope this policy will thwart the ways some companies wish to "use" free software -- namely, distributing it to you while controlling what you can do with it. This policy is not a "use restriction": it doesn't restrict how they, or you, can run the program; it doesn't restrict what they, or you, can make the program do. Rather it ensures you, as a user, are as free as they are. Contrary to what some have said, GPLv3 will not cause a company to "lose its entire [software] patent portfolio". It simply says that if someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a GPL-covered program to do XYZ, he can't sue the program's subsequent users, redistributors and improvers for doing XYZ with their own versions of that program. This has no effect on other patents which that program does not implement. Software patents attack the freedom of all software developers and users; their only legitimate use is to deter aggression using software patents. Therefore, if we could abolish every entity's entire portfolio of software patents tomorrow, we would jump at the chance. But it isn't possible for a software license such as the GNU GPL to achieve such a result. We do, however, hope that GPL v3 can solve a part of the patent problem. The FSF is now negotiating with organizations holding substantial patent inventories, trying to mediate between their conflicting "extreme" positions. We hope to work out the precise details of the explicit patent license so as to free software developers from patent aggression under a substantial fraction of software patents. To fully protect software developers and users from software patents will, however, require changes in patent law. === --Ken.
