What's stopping David from doing this anyway, with or without the consent of
The Freenet Corporation? Either people will use it or they won't use it.
Either way it doesn't detract from the usefulness of Freenet. The only
problem I can (really) see is that it could lead to a widespread
misconception that "freenet == www.blah.free" and/or "freenet __only__
works with browser plugins"
Admittedly a little misinformation can do a lot of damage. But is it worth
hassling him now? The way I see it, freeweb is just an application rather
than a whole new protocol. True, the application has a different 'view'
onto the freenet space, but so what? As a glib example, FTP clients
generally sweeten the protocol by allowing you to type "rename" instead of
using raw RNFR and RNTO commands directly. If an application viewed the
world in exactly the same way as if the application wasn't there, whereby
the inputs are the same as the outputs, then it wouldn't be an application
that did anything useful. while (1) {output=input;nop();}
Hmmm. Just a thought. FreeWeb, "a Freenet application that some may find
convenient."
Dave
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
