[Savannah-hackers] Re: mldonkey licensing

[Mathieu Roy]

MLdonkey <address@hidden> said:

> >  If you are the sole copyright holder, it would be allowed.  I don't
> >  think those two files would really be Free Software, because users would
> >  not really have the right to modify them.  But that's not a official FSF
> >  position (I don't really want to start a week-long process to figure out
> >  the official position)  IMO, Savannah should not distribute these files.
> 
> I will remove the file donkey.lam from the CVS today. I will modify
> the configure script to ask and download this file from another
> location if the user wants edonkey support. Binary distributions will
> be available only from another location, too. This way, only the free
> part of mldonkey stays at Savannah, is it OK ?

It would be fine for me. The better solution would a completely Free
mldonkey be I try to understand the technical reasons behind this
choice.

But I need acknolegment of Loic Dachary, since he is the one who lead
Savannah. One could say I refers too many time on him but I really
mean the fact that I cannot impose my personals choices on savannah.


> >  But as a practical matter, obfuscation won't stop script kiddis
> >  from screwing things up.  It will only stop good people from
> >  improving it.  IIRC, Gnutella had people setting huge TTLs and
> >  returning bogus results before the source was released.
> 
> Yes, of course. But it will at least prevent the majority of users
> from just modifying two variables in the sources just for their client
> to connect to all servers instead of 5. Moreover, mldonkey is only a
> client, I can't fix the problems which are in the servers or in the
> protocol. 
> 
> - MLDonkey

Regards,

-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
 << Profile  << http://savannah.gnu.org/users/yeupou <<
 >> Homepage >> http://yeupou.coleumes.org           >>
 << GPG Key  << http://gpg.coleumes.org              <<