On Monday 03 November 2003 07:26 pm, Toad wrote:
1. Remove the link to the non-java version. Nobody should run freenet
unless they have broadband anyway!
Ahem? Why? I work fine on *33.6*, and I don't think I put much load on the
network (like I even could) that would be made up for by me being
Toad wrote:
There must be some surrealistic reinterpretation going on here. You said
that they said:
No - it is VERY simple, I don't see why people are having such trouble
grasping this. I spoke to one person, they gave me duff advice, then I
spoke to someone else that was more senior, and
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 10:42:54PM -0500, Colin Davis wrote:
Okay, so how are we going to not allow them to install the JRE from our
site without installing the software?
If the non-indexable directory was (even trivially) password protected,
and the installed knew to request
: [freenet-dev] Windows Installers [yet again]
If the non-indexable directory was (even trivially) password protected,
and the installed knew to request http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] it would be
hard to argue that the Freenet project was intentionally allowing
people to download software from the site
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:54:18AM +, Ian Clarke wrote:
After several months we are still deliberately complicating the
installation process for Windows users by having separate Java and
non-Java installers. Our users simply shouldn't have to know what Java
is to use Freenet, let alone
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:57:43PM +, Ian Clarke wrote:
Dave Hooper wrote:
How about renaming freenet-java-webinstall.exe to freenet-webinstall.exe?
There, that fixes the problem. Now there's only one version.
I don't think forcing users to needlessly re-download the JRE will win
us
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:40:42PM +, Ian Clarke wrote:
Dave Hooper wrote:
I explained to Sun's lawyers exactly what we were doing and they said
its fine. Even if there is still some uncertainty over the exact
language they used, our efforts to clarify this issue are more than
enough to
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 12:19:49AM +, Ian Clarke wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
I have followed this discussion with interest. It seems to me that if
you put the JRE on your server, in a non-listable directory (perhaps
even password protected) and avoid publishing the path and file name
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 12:36:43AM +, Ian Clarke wrote:
Dave Hooper wrote:
In practice, a common-sense interpretation,
which takes into account the spirit of what is being said, is the way
lawyers (after you have paid them lots of money) will generally advise.
Ye-e... and taking
Okay, so how are we going to not allow them to install the JRE from our
site without installing the software?
If the non-indexable directory was (even trivially) password protected,
and the installed knew to request http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] it would be
hard to argue that the Freenet project was
After several months we are still deliberately complicating the
installation process for Windows users by having separate Java and
non-Java installers. Our users simply shouldn't have to know what Java
is to use Freenet, let alone know whether it is installed on their
computer, or what
On Sun, 2003-11-02 at 23:54, Ian Clarke wrote:
Our users simply shouldn't have to know what Java
is to use Freenet, let alone know whether it is installed on their
computer, or what version is installed.
Be careful expressing sentiments like that. If people act on this, then
freenet might
]
To: Discussion of development issues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 10:54 AM
Subject: [freenet-dev] Windows Installers [yet again]
After several months we are still deliberately complicating the
installation process for Windows users by having separate Java and
non-Java installers
Dave Hooper wrote:
How about renaming freenet-java-webinstall.exe to freenet-webinstall.exe?
There, that fixes the problem. Now there's only one version.
I don't think forcing users to needlessly re-download the JRE will win
us any friends amongst our Windows userbase.
All I want is for things
I explained to Sun's lawyers exactly what we were doing and they said
its fine. Even if there is still some uncertainty over the exact
language they used, our efforts to clarify this issue are more than
enough to take the path of least resistance, if Sun has a problem with
it - they can let
Dave Hooper wrote:
I explained to Sun's lawyers exactly what we were doing and they said
its fine. Even if there is still some uncertainty over the exact
language they used, our efforts to clarify this issue are more than
enough to take the path of least resistance, if Sun has a problem with
it -
Roger Hayter wrote:
I have followed this discussion with interest. It seems to me that if
you put the JRE on your server, in a non-listable directory (perhaps
even password protected) and avoid publishing the path and file name
anywhere else than in the windows installer configuration file,
I have followed this discussion with interest. It seems to me that if
you put the JRE on your server, in a non-listable directory (perhaps
even password protected) and avoid publishing the path and file name
anywhere else than in the windows installer configuration file, then
Sun's rules
In practice, a common-sense interpretation,
which takes into account the spirit of what is being said, is the way
lawyers (after you have paid them lots of money) will generally advise.
Ye-e... and taking into account the spirit of not hosting the JRE on a
public website would be to ...
Dave Hooper wrote:
Yes. Which is why I refuse to revert to the old installer (although nothing
is stopping anyone else with cvs and sftp access from doing this).
The issue that Sun pointed to me as in breach was that we were hosting in
its entirety the Sun JRE on our server, in a publicly
Dave Hooper wrote:
In practice, a common-sense interpretation,
which takes into account the spirit of what is being said, is the way
lawyers (after you have paid them lots of money) will generally advise.
Ye-e... and taking into account the spirit of not hosting the JRE on a
public website
I took it as given that we would put the JRE in an obscure non-listable
folder, surely you didn't think that I was proposing we didn't change
anything? How hard can it be to change the download URL in the installer?
I quote my email from 1 hour and 19 minutes ago: That will be easy.
When you
22 matches
Mail list logo
