On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 13:09 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Toseland > > Every reasonably interesting name is already in use. :| > > Suggestions for renaming Freetalk are welcome as far as I am > concerned. > > We should stick with "Freetalk" unless someone comes up with a clearly > better name that isn't taken. > > The "freetalk" software you mention is not high-profile, and I think we are > placing > an excessive restriction on ourselves if we must find an absolutely unique > name.
This appear as a licence violation; is it really necessary? Freenet need absolutely a clearly already taken name? In this case I suppose that someone can politely ask the previous art authors .... -- +--------------- http://www.winstonsmith.info ---------------+ | il Progetto Winston Smith: scolleghiamo il Grande Fratello | | the Winston Smith Project: unplug the Big Brother | | Marco A. Calamari marcoc at marcoc.it http://www.marcoc.it | | DSS/DH: 8F3E 5BAE 906F B416 9242 1C10 8661 24A9 BFCE 822B | + PGP RSA: ED84 3839 6C4D 3FFE 389F 209E 3128 5698 ----------+ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20090603/72aeb989/attachment.pgp>
