Jamie Morken wrote: > > Hi all, > > Well Mr. Bad I think that it is important to minimize corporate influence in > an opensource project which advocates freedom. I find it interesting that > freenet is advocating free speech while Intel is building a company for the > Freenet project leader.
Why is this interesting? The architecture behind freenet shows that Ian knows his shit. Intel is funding a company that will use Ian's expertise in distributed systems and content distribution. (presumably and based on initial info. See: http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2001/05/05/uprizer.html ) > Once the code is in the hands of Uprizer/Intel does > it no longer advocate free speech and is it no longer opensource? Uprizer is using totally different code. It has totally different goals. Freenet is and will remain Freenet regardless of what Ian does with Uprizer. > Will > Intel "contractual obligation" additions to the code be made public? Maybe > you don't recall Intel's history of putting unique identifiers into its PIII > processors but I do! :) Intel is one of the big boys in worldwide companies > and they play by entirely different rules than you would expect: threats, > bribes and lies are all commonly used by them to hold their market share > where they want it. Don't believe me then go talk to some of the > semiconductor manufacturers in Taiwan who wanted to make AMD boards :) Again, this is not an issue. Intel is not using Uprizer to infiltrate and infect the Freenet code base!!! It is an entirely separate entity, whos only common thread is that Ian is involved based on his prior experience with distributed content distribution. Best regards... (hopefuly this dispelled any fears you has about Intel/Uprizer/Freenet) _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
