Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06

2006-09-26 Thread Brandon Low
I do not give permission for any microscopic amount of code that may exist of mine in current freenet to be tagged GPL V2 or later, GPL V2 only for me. I won't go into the reasons for this, they are well discussed by the document recently published by the linux kernel developers. --Brandon On 20

Re: Licensing was Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06

2006-09-26 Thread Brandon Low
don On 2006-09-27 (Wed) at 01:20:08 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 07:05:11PM -0500, Brandon Low wrote: > > I do not give permission for any microscopic amount of code that may > > exist of mine in current freenet to be tagged GPL V2 or later, GPL V2 > &g

Re: Licensing was Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06

2006-09-27 Thread Brandon Low
+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 comp

[freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06

2006-09-26 Thread Brandon Low
I do not give permission for any microscopic amount of code that may exist of mine in current freenet to be tagged GPL V2 or later, GPL V2 only for me. I won't go into the reasons for this, they are well discussed by the document recently published by the linux kernel developers. --Brandon On 20

Licensing was Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06

2006-09-26 Thread Brandon Low
don On 2006-09-27 (Wed) at 01:20:08 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 07:05:11PM -0500, Brandon Low wrote: > > I do not give permission for any microscopic amount of code that may > > exist of mine in current freenet to be tagged GPL V2 or later, GPL V2 > &g

Licensing was Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06

2006-09-27 Thread Brandon Low
+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 comp

Re: [freenet-support] 5029 overloads

2003-10-29 Thread Brandon Low
What is your thread limit? From the looks of that it is incredibly low... Also, are you using YThreads or QThreads... what you might want to do is increase your thread limit to something closer to 200 or 300 and change to YThreads. --B On Wed, 10/29/03 at 22:06:53 -0800, Martin Stone Davis wrote

Re: [freenet-support] Re: 5029 overloads

2003-10-29 Thread Brandon Low
hile freenet.ini says it's 120 by default? And does this mean the real > default value (40) is being set way too low? > > -Martin > > Brandon Low wrote: > >What is your thread limit? From the looks of that it is incredibly > >low... Also, are you using YThreads or

Re: [freenet-support] 5058: Crack open some bubbly!

2004-01-14 Thread Brandon Low
On my node, 5058 is _grand_ for a few hours, but then it dies a horrible and painful lock contention death. I have e-mailed a thread dump to 2 good devs, and hopefully they will be able to reduce the lock contention and then I will join the celebration. --Brandon On Wed, 01/14/04 at 11:24:17 +00