Log In     Register    

Off Topic
Anything else...
<<  Back To Forum

open source

by Guest on 2018/09/02 03:20:37 PM    
I recognize the dev doesn't want to do this, but it really needs to happen. Few people are going to move away from bittorrent to something of unknown safety. Not to mention it'd likely speed up development as the software gained traction.

Plus the software is free and the primary dev could just keep all the donations and not distribute them. Most folks that would contribute would add in features that don't benefit the end user.
by Guest on 2018/09/03 12:35:12 AM    
This type of discussion has taken place on this forum before, besides the dubious claims put forward for how open sourcing is going to benefit anyone (except for an exploit hunter or MPAA employee), the track record of the Tixati/Fopnu developer has always been to maintain a closed source and retain control over his work.

I dont think any appeals to fame or money will change his mind, he enjoys his work and is currently getting on with bug fixes and feature updates so whats the big problem ?
by Guest on 2019/01/13 01:38:44 AM    
The big problem, obviously, is that WinMX and Napster before it went down the proprietary client and network path before and look where that got everyone.

When the protocol and only client software is secret proprietary software that nobody knows what it really does when you run it, of course I not only don't want it on my computer, but I'd think you would have to be nuts to want it.

When Napster and WinMX tried doing the same thing, the copyright trolls went to court and got the whole thing shut down. If Fopnu ever gains any users, why won't it gain the attention of copyright trolls who do the same thing to it?

What if the only person who understands how the client software and protocol work doesn't want to maintain it anymore or dies?

If it was open source and the protocol was in the public domain, anyone could implement it and it wouldn't matter what the big corporations and courts and governments want to do, and it wouldn't be in the hands of a single control freak who can do whatever he wants with it later, including possibly adding adware, spyware, and other junk (Assuming it's not in there now. Prove it isn't.), getting bored and calling it quits, or dying.

No, I don't trust this software and that's why from the beginning I decided not to use it. A lot of these problems apply to the Tixati program as well, but at least it uses an open network that anyone can implements. (And dozens have, and many of them are open source. So why bother with Tixati, either?).

Ignoring the other complaints, why would any user invest resources in using a program that takes us back in time to the problems that bittorrent solved?
by Loops on 2019/01/14 12:29:23 AM    
Your take of history seems a bit erroneous Guest, first of all WinMx is still operating and has been since it was officially closed following on from RIAA legal threats, when it became neccessary the more technically proficient users took over the network and its community is still undertaking the task.

The Napster issue revolved around having a centralised server architechture, so it was claimed to be facillitating illegal activity, neither winmx nor tixati or fopnu rely on such servers, we can argue over the more mundane bootstrapping method for initial node discovery but thats pretty much covered in each area by work about methods such as cacheing of nodes and magnet links etc, decentralised networks are not impossible to close down but they do require a tremendous effort and such an effort has the potential to be law breaking in its own right.

In both cases above the protocols are known by those who take the time to do some homework, as is the bit torrent protocol thats very poor when it comes to any sort of security, using such a protocol might be trivial but then with simplicity comes liability, 95% of all copyright claims are now delivered automatically by bots scouring the bit torrent streams for users IP addresses, its so trivial its pathetic. I dont see Fopnu as being a backward step in fact I see it for what it is, a small leap down a continually improving road, new ideas and concepts will be added on a reasonably stable codebase, this has always been the case with this developer and will I am sure remain the case. I have been using this authors software for 18 years now unmolested and so if your unsure about anything perhaps this type of software is a bit too powerful for you and should best be avoided, the rest of us can enjoy it knowing that periodic evolution is part of its DNA.
by Guest on 2020/04/19 05:13:26 PM    
Periodic evolution until something happens to the chief developer, of course, Loops. Having it be libre is the first step to solving the bus problem.
by Loops on 2020/04/20 09:27:42 AM    
Hi Guest, dont get me wrong I too would like to know more about how the internals operate but also I know that giving away the whole model and supporting code would ensure we dont have any developer in a short space of time, the first thing an open source release delivers is a raft of exploits.

No developer wants to have their entire free time spent for them on fixing code that was fine closed src but a liability now that a weakness can be seen from the open src, I have been in this same position myself and I resented the fact that there was no one to help and that all the work was now on my shoulders to keep the software viable, of course i stopped bothering and the open software sits idle and unused as the "tools" have moved on to other open src easy meat.

I dont think you should concern yourself too much about if the dev here expires etc, as with WinMX if the userbase is strong and the software decent others will step forward to ensure the survival of the network in dark times.
by Guest on 2021/11/02 12:58:35 PM    
I believe open sourcing will help:
- other can contribute and fix bugs allowing wider bandwidth than what the current developer can handle
- if the developer for some reason cesses development other can take over the development
by Guest on 2022/06/03 10:24:54 AM    
If the program will become open source probably more people will jump on fopnu.
by Guest on 2022/10/18 02:55:43 AM    
If he does not want to open source fopnu, then he could at least document the protocol in a book. He could help develop fopnu by selling a technical manual with the information necessary to write your own client. If you buy the book, then you implement fopnu by yourself, he still makes money. We get a multitude of clients, he makes money, it is a win win situation.
by Guest on 2023/01/29 01:26:19 AM    
The only viable license for free as in freedom P2P file sharing is the GNU Affero GPL v3 or later. It fixes the loophole of the cracker running malicious nodes behind closed doors to rat out users to copyright trolls, since now we can sue the RIAA, MPAA, Software Publishing Alliance, cracker, exploit developer for the source code. Using the source code we can then develop solutions to mitigate these exploits. It is hard to sue for copyright infringement when you're one too. The GNU Affero GPL v3 also contains a clause stating that no part of the software shall count as an effective technological measure under the World Intellectual Property Treaty or any such similar laws. Few other open source licenses do this, which they should considering declaring an effective technological measure can have similar effects to software patents. Imagine what else can be build with Fopnu? P2P web hosting, Fopnu over I2P, Fopnu based email, Fopnu based package managers? What added features could be added to forks of Fopnu, opt in blacklists that auto update, support for other operating systems such as OpenBSD or Haiku, a fork for Mac OS and android. Maybe we could see a version written in Rust, a version written in GO, a version written in Python, Ruby, Javascript. Another change I would recommend requiring that if you own the rights to a work, and you upload that work to Fopnu, then you must license that work under the Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike International 4.0 or later. This will stop copyright trolls from uploading copyrighted works to fopnu to extort users who download them. This can be enforced either through the license agreement, or by programming all Fopnu clients to ignore files that do not agree to the terms and conditions.
by Guest on 2023/02/03 11:03:00 PM    
If Fopnu were licensed under the GNU Affero GPL with an additonal requirement that (1) if you upload a file and (2) you have ownership of the copyright to the file, then you must license the file under the Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 4.0 or later. The second requirement is that if you have the right to enforce copyright on the file, by downloading or uploading the file you waive your right to sue uploaders/downloaders unless it is a violation of a License that meets the Open Source Definition or if the license meets the definition of a Free Cultural Work. Anyone using the network would have no standing whatsoever since doing so would make them a pirate too. Kevin Hearn should look into this as a potential copyright hack. If it works he should expand this to Tixati and DarkMX too.
by Guest on 2023/06/30 01:18:35 AM    
The only two viable licenses for something like fopnu are the cryptographic autonomy license version 1.0 or later and the GNU affero GPL v3 or later. The idea that a novel p2p network be released under a permissive license is a tragedy to me. If you don't like that, read the specification and write it yourself. Free Software not open source.

This web site is powered by Super Simple Server