OpenSource P2P Debate, it's about choice

There are 2 instances under the GPL that allows Red Hat to make their money. Just to qualify my point, here's the clause of the GPL I refer to:

It seems to me that Red Hat charges for the act of creating a CD for you and for the limited warranty they provide with their retail versions.

If someone wants to "make a buck" from selling a Gnutella servent, he/she would have to make that buck by developing their own software from scratch. The makers of Moose aren't doing any "work" by riding the progress of an already fully developed client. Now, unless they can distribute their servent and charge under the guise of providing a warranty of some sort, then that's fine. However, they still would have to make their source available to whomever wants it... free of charge of course. If not, then they're clearly in violation of the GPL and can be taken to court.

If you want a good no adware client, then why don't you use Gnucleus? You know.... the FREE GPL software that Moose is going to be based on. Besides that, there's already an ad free version of LimeWire that cost HALF as much as would be charged for Moose.

But, that all being said, I'm just the messenger. I didn't make the rules... and the makers of Moose will have to take it up with the Free Software Foundation if they feel they don't like it. (Not that there's much they could do about it.) And, being the messenger, I'll make sure the FSF knows all the details if I find out that they're not following the GPL.

However, all this may be in vain. After all, the makers of Moose have not yet said whether they plan on complying with the GPL. If so, then this discussion is moot.
 
We closed already two or three threads... we cannot close all!

I think the best way is to point out where the other is not right and discuss it!!!

@ all

BUT WITHOUT FLOODING PLEASE!

Morgwen
 
People get pissed off because of teh spy/ad ware exist in some Gnutella client software, in the meantime, the maker of those spy/ad ware are making money from Gnutella network's free resource. Wait ... from where?

Sometimes from observation, people tend to jump on the direct conclusion with the easiest express path. For instance, if you are running Bearshare with spyware, and donwloading file from my disk, the profit that you are making should have some share that I've contributed, or did I?

A simpliest question often forgotten to be asked: Why in hell do these user who more than likely already pissed off by the spyware and complaint all around the world, in real life, are still using Bearshare? Why didn't they switch over to these many other Gnutella client available on the earth? Did any of you who jump on the 'openxxx p2p' bandwagon ever bother to ask yourself this question?

Let me try this, the spyware is not exactly target to make profit from Gnutella share files, but rather attempt to exploit a way to sponsor the software development.

Now back to the question why those bearshare users are still using bearshare, it's simply because they like bearshare, period!!

This whole open Gnutella network brought us a good thing, that is anyone can develop a Gnutella client software, to offer to user for a choice. To use bearshare regardless the annoy spyware is truly a user choice. It can only because bearshare is better than other software in it's usability, connectivity, or whatever, that is in this user's view.

It's your choice to develop a better software to compete with bearrshare if you can, at any time. The fact is, most freebie are under developer's spare time work, often inferior to those back by some financial support.

To ban bearshare as well as any other software client with spyware will not stop developer's attempting to seek financial support as naturally they want to spend more time on it but also bring income by do that work, hope this is not something hard to understand.

The ideal result of course, is most of Gnutella developer join in one or a few of development group, concentrate on a single or a couple of client software, instead of this free competition mode of Gnutella client software. Though the premise is an unite commitee sort to settle on the proposal with priority when developers have disparate opinion.
 
And which one would you consider better, according to objective criteria?


Who are those developers outside the GDF?


What is the "Gnutella idea"???


As I see it, it's not easy to change the protocol of a running network. And I don't know which remarkable step you are referring to, which is not (at least in some form) being implemented.

I don't like you. Why do you dis the LimeWire people. I mean everyone is free (as in beer) to create a fork of LimeWire and implement the features he likes.

I'm quite impressed with the work of the LimeWire developers, they managed to create a Java-application that even seems to outperform native applications like Bearshare on some systems. And they succeeded in making Gnutella the fastest growing (although mainly due to the fate of Morpheus) p2p-network, while keeping it as p2p as possible.

If you read the posts of the developers on the GDF (ok, Vinnie Falco is Vinnie Falco, and I don't like his style sometimes either) and you will see, that the posts (especially of the LimeWire staff) are very constructive. Even if I'd prefer if some people on the GDF did less talking more developing, the GDF is very resourceful for anyone participating.

If some developers won't participate, it's their decision, but personally I think that those people should simply build their own network instead of flooding gnutella with malformed requests and queries, spoiling the copyright-infringement-fun of all other users in the network.
 
So it is fraud. That's pretty serious.
What if this guy was going to sell the TV at the garage sale and donate 50% back to the charity and kept the rest, would that be OK? What about 80% or 20%?
And if the charity slaps this guy, and a month later I find out he is doing it again, what should I do?
Should I get the neighborhood community together and stop this?
 
Where will corporate greed take you today?

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/04052002g.php
Morpheus: Secret detour tech Removed
posted by wiggum on April 04, 2002 @ 02:51pm
Streamcast Networks came under fire last month for including software in Morpheus Preview Addition that redirected users from shopping
sites such as Amazon to its own shopping service. This has been removed and StreamCast Networks say in future versions Morpheus
users' Web browsing will not be affected unless they sign up for the shopping program . Glad to see that this popular file sharing program is
removing unwanted bundled software. Read the full story here.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-875960.html

"Cashing in on customers
In an effort to exploit their massive customer bases, the online peer-to-peer networks are
eyeing several schemes to make money, particularly by serving ads to consumers. "

What will they do next to cash in on your CPU cycles and network resources.
Remember, people in the UK and other places pay per minute for network access.
 
Gnaaaaaarrn! Did you at least read my posts about how ultrapeers and clustering work? no, of course not. Ultrapeer is not a fiendish plot to take over the world, and Ultrapeer clustering is completely sensible! You don't present any proof of how clustering takes away users or files from other vendors. That's a very nice conspiration theory, but just repeating the old prejudices, rumours and lies over and over doesn't make them real.

And what has the GDF to do with spyware in Limewire and bearshare? If you don't want it, don't use it! Many people accept spyware if they get better search features - see KaZaA. it is not a matter of the gdf to block them. if the users don't want the spyware, they can use another client!

the GDF is far from perfect. but on this level we cannot discuss about it. we won't achieve anything if the same unproven accusations are posted again and again and again.
 
Sorry, but as long as whoever it is releases the source code he can sell "the Moose". Look at redhat, you pay $50+ for a GPL operating system. Personally i think he's trolling, but anyway.
 
The Moose is on the loose!

Instead of adware we opted for serial number protection. When you pay to use the program, you get a serial number and can then operate the client.
Testing has been ongoing for the pre alpha version and the serial number code is working great.
We have invested enough to hire 2 full time programmers for the short term and hope the low cost fee will support further improvements.
For those of you who asked, the Moose is almost exactly like BearShare in operation look/feel. We should be able to ad new features and improvements quickly because we have a staff of programmers, rather than only one like BearShare has. Gnucleus 1.7 features were just added.

Use the Moose!
 
Really?

If that's the case, I am confused by this following clause of the GPL:


In my interpretation (of course, I am only a programmer and not a lawyer) this means that a person cannot charge for a program that was derived from another piece of software that they obtained for free (and has been released under the GPL). I, however, am quite freely willing to admit that I could be wrong.

Maybe you can help clear things up a bit.
 
you got me wrong. i used to agree with moak in the past, but i think he has gone too far. concerning greed, it is not a problem as long as the network is not hurt.

i can't see anyone hurting the network. i didn't believe the rumours that Phex/XoloX hurt the network with their automated queries, and i don't believe that LimeWire hurts the network with their clustering either.

however, i do agree with you were bearshare is concerned. i am convinced that clustering clients based on features is a good thing. i am however not convinced that clustering based on vendors is a good thing. but that is exactly what you are doing: by blocking specific vendors, you are in effect clustering specific vendors, and that is exactly what vinnie does. that is why Mr. Gone called you a Hypocrite.

further, i dislike how Bearshare completely stopped supporting 0.4 connections (hurting the network), because that is not "preferencing by feature", that is "blocking by feature". and i won't tolerate these spy packets (as they are a security issue). noone really knows what they are, and i don't believe vinnie that they contain only version numbers. it would be much easier to call home to bearshare.com.

but i don't advocate all the community to go and block bearshare. even if all bears were clustered together, that wouldn't necessarily mean that it hurts the network. if you disagree than please explain me why. think of the gnutella network as a large sphere and the bearshares as a small sphere inside the big one: that's what bearshare does. it could make it hard for non-bearshares to connect because Bearshare will not attempt their connection requests. that's the only issue i see with it.

Adam: is there a reason to completely stop support for 0.4 clients? how much of the network still uses 0.4, do you have any accurate statistics? i can't believe that this step was necessary, why didn't limewire use its good relationship to vinnie and tried to convince him to go on with 0.4 support?
 
Gnucleus now uses a web based cache system, and I came up with the idea!
BearShare doesn't have a hold on everyone anymore!
If you didn't know, all the current host caches for the last 4 or 6 months are using the BearShare one, just re-directing the link, or are using BearShare for the cache software.
If it wasn't for open source you wouldn't see this feature because commercial companies lose control, and they hate that.
Too bad now! Another weak link removed from Gnutella, now just block, block, block those commercial clients off the net!

"The final feature, new in 1.7.5 is actually something separate we created for increasing the survival of Gnutella. Its called GnuCache, a web based PHP script that acts as a host cache for gnutella nodes. The reason we developed this is so Gnutella becomes more fail-safe. Most gnutella clients rely on permanent host servers such as connect1.gnutellanet.com to find an entry into the gnutella network. Gnucleus is the only gnutella client not dependent on host cache servers"
 
Actually ,no we don't,not any more...at least in the UK.For people not familiar with the UK ISP situation check out this site for Dial-Ups
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/list.shtml

Or this site for Cable/ADSL
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/category.php?category=communication

The UK has long been a leading player for unmetered dialup,and now broadband....why someone(apparently from the UK) pretends otherwise is beyond me
 
You have to understand that this is the sanest thing to do for an Ultrapeer-enabled client. By aggregating to Ultrapeer-capable hosts, you not only get to see files from 1 but to 50, or 100, or even 200 hosts: the ultrapeer's own files plus all its leaves.

What does it mean? It means clients not supporting ultrapeers will become marginal. So just implement ultrapeers.

I don't believe LW is segregating. It will allow 4 slots for other ultrapeers and 2 to "legacy" clients. This allows to bridge the older clients, but does not leave much room for older clients to connect.

Yes, it's a shame. Do you have a better strategy to offer?
 
Back
Top