----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 9:57 PM
Subject: RE: [freenet-devl] MercuryFS
> I never responded to this email, and am not a member of this email group
> anymore (want to be, but have to manage my inbox). So here it goes, event
> though its late.
You should have sent this to the -chat list, you know.
>
> This question misses the whole theory behind MFS: it's a global standard,
What is this "global standard" stuff? It sounds like you're trying to
create a new buzzword.
> if
> implemented in its entirety, and will allow for the anywhere pc scenario
to
> work, then there is more or less full permission to implement it, royalty
> free, if you're also open/managed source.
One of the big points of Free Software and even the lesser Open Source
movements is that anybody is allowed to use the software without any
discrimination (within certian rules; for instance, the GPL says you have to
release the source code to any changes you make). That means that if a Free
Software project were to take your stuff, without themselves making a
profit, and put their source under the BSD license, anybody would be allowed
to take their source and do basicly whatever they want with it (the BSD only
carries the restriction that you have to keep the author's name on the
source code), including making a profit from it. They won't care a hoot and
hollar about your little "dream", they'll just use MFS from somebody else
then you without giving you a dime.
In this case, you can either:
1) Disallow Free Software / Open Source projects from using it at all (in
which case you will probably lose any respect you might still have in both
those communities).
OR
2) Have Free Software / Open Source projects carry a license extention that
says the program can't be used in a commercial product (at which point they
would no longer be a Free Software / Open Source project, due to
discrimination issues. Will probably turn out the same as the first one).
What is more, if you carry either of the above restrictions, and your
filesystem turns out to be any good at all, somebody will just reverse
engineer the protocol (they did it with Samba and AIM clones (IIRC)) and
create a true Free Software project out of it anyway.
>
> The license is like federal law, all member states have to abide by it,
but
> it's a small set of laws (ok, the analogy breaks down here) are free to do
> their own thing. Paying tax will only occur for Microsoft, novell, and
> others who implement MFS in a closed source way. Since I don't intend to
> have a dedicated staff of more than 25 people total, it will be cheap.
With
> a global deployment, the UNI ID yearly fee will drop. Eventually I will
make
> it non profit, because of political reasons (don't repeat that until I
have
> funding, please). The rest of the money will go to law firms who are
> automatically put on retainer by UNI ID, to represent the interests of the
> user who's info (an incomplete credit card # and email address, give me a
> break you guys, its as psuedo-anonymous as possible) is being requested.
If
> you look at the balance diagram www.mercuryfs.net/balance/index.html, the
> law firms are on our side of the scale. We will throw our money behind
> certain cases, while we go through our "hi, nice to meet you, but your
also
> my opponent" phase of this, and it will be litigation. In fact, if the
dream
> comes true, we will be the source of new case law. Because of that fact,
I'm
> opening a dialogue with the ACLU, because they would fill that position in
> my dream quite well. I know for a fact that the US govt will be cake
> compared to the rest of the world, because I've already spoken to them (to
> quote 'em "nice job").
>
> I understand your political views well, but don't agree with them. Hint:
I'm
> a republican.
NO WAY!!!
> Social liberal, fiscal conservative, but I voted for Gore,
> because of his experience and track record. Bush's experience (but not
> skills) pale in comparison. So I fit into some categories, when they suit
my
> interests, and I make no effort to hide that fact. In fact, if the
> republicans really piss me off, I'll write my own name on the ballot and
> tell them to kiss my ass.
>
> The reason I engaged the freenet crowd, is that our views are more similar
> than many other views (like the draconian RIAA).
>
> You see guys, I get to deal with the RIAA, because MFS's copyright
features
> can be bypassed in a heartbeat. Just as people distribute cd keys for
> Microsoft products, they will distribute UNI ID group keys, which are
> injected into the 7800 UNI ID temp cache (FIG 7), using the same
interfaces
> that NDS or Active directory will be using. Then the RIAA will be stupid
> enough to say "well, since MFS identifies all files via math values, you
can
> spot all copyrighted material and manually filter it out, at the ISP
level".
> Then I will use the license, and say NO, you're not going to screw with my
> design. I am big brother, not you. Fuck off.
As I said before (perhaps you didn't get that message since you're not on
this list), the Napster decision says that you may either have complete
control or complete anarchy. If you have any control what-so-ever, you will
be forced to exercise it to the maximum extent to keep things They don't
want off of it. Even before Napster was brought down, Freenet has always
taken the "complete anarchy" philosophy, and now it turns out that we're
better off for it.
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
