Nobody is saying you should ignore anything. However, given that freenet is an OSS project, towards which you admit you contribute nothing, I don't think you -or anyone else not contributing- should be throwing too many stones.
It's nice you have an opinion, and you should feel free to express it. However, the people that runs the projects at sourceforge are perfectly entitled to do so. You may think that many of them are wasting their time, fair enough, but I don't see what you acheive by giving sourceforge a wholesale berating.
I think the criticism is due largely to the hype that surronds OSS atm. Don't get me wrong, there are some really interesting things happening, but to some extent, the reality can never live up to what certain over vocal advocates have promised.
that the likes of Napster/Gnutella serve the needs of most people in terms of p2p file sharing. Freenet is very impressive from a technical standpoint, but its complexity and current lack of a search method, are hindering its uptake.
Personally, rather than being an end user application, I envisage freenet being used to link to information via webpages. Instead of url's, certain sites for security/safety reasons could link to freenet keys.
if Ebay tries to enforce this, they will be laughed out of any court in the land. BT tried a similar stunt recenlty in the UK saying it had a patent on hyperlinking. It is clear in both cases that prior art exists.
Im still rather confused though as to why Ebay would even try to patent something that clearly already existed before it even existed. Do they really think they have a cats chance in hell of having this upheld in a court?
The pentium 4 debacle seems to provide further evidence that Intel is having a hard time existing in a competative marketplace. Long gone are the days when the X86 platform was ruled by Intel.
Anyone else think that the Pentium 4 is going to be a complete disrater for intel?
Be nice!
What I meant was that assuming both parties could come to some kind of agreement, the Authors guild agreeing to stop bitching if offered a cut of used book sales.
What is not clear is what kind of percentage of the proceeds from the sale of a second hand book would publishers/authors expect. Also, assuming for a minute that this argument had any credability, what would be the situaion with e-books. Given that they don't wear out, would authors and publishers be entitled to proceeds everytime the e-book was sold to someone else.
The crux of their argument seems to be that another party, other than the one that initially paid for the book should not take ownership of the book from the original buyer, without then seeing some kind of compensation. This seems to suggest that Authors guild would also be against people swapping books/giving them away, once the original purchases has read them.
This smacks of 'how much more money can we make if we come up with some half-baked idea and channel it through an official mouthpiece'
Slashdot Mirror
if Ebay tries to enforce this, they will be laughed out of any court in the land. BT tried a similar stunt recenlty in the UK saying it had a patent on hyperlinking. It is clear in both cases that prior art exists. Im still rather confused though as to why Ebay would even try to patent something that clearly already existed before it even existed. Do they really think they have a cats chance in hell of having this upheld in a court?
The pentium 4 debacle seems to provide further evidence that Intel is having a hard time existing in a competative marketplace. Long gone are the days when the X86 platform was ruled by Intel. Anyone else think that the Pentium 4 is going to be a complete disrater for intel?
how many hail Mary's my newgroup subscription list would get me..
Be nice! What I meant was that assuming both parties could come to some kind of agreement, the Authors guild agreeing to stop bitching if offered a cut of used book sales.
What is not clear is what kind of percentage of the proceeds from the sale of a second hand book would publishers/authors expect. Also, assuming for a minute that this argument had any credability, what would be the situaion with e-books. Given that they don't wear out, would authors and publishers be entitled to proceeds everytime the e-book was sold to someone else. The crux of their argument seems to be that another party, other than the one that initially paid for the book should not take ownership of the book from the original buyer, without then seeing some kind of compensation. This seems to suggest that Authors guild would also be against people swapping books/giving them away, once the original purchases has read them. This smacks of 'how much more money can we make if we come up with some half-baked idea and channel it through an official mouthpiece'