16 Sep
2017
16 Sep
'17
5:39 p.m.
Please note, I'm replying onlist as Chris wants to keep this "private" so
can't see how messed up this is.
On 9/16/17 5:17 PM, Chris wrote:
Gee, if only there was an easy way to refute said "assumptions".
License your code under a free software license and submit it to the users.
It is. You wrote it and under federal copyright law you own it.
I would refer you to https://portal.ampr.org/site-terms.php
"AMPRNet refers to the group of individuals responsible for maintaining this
website. "
Assuming this is valid, you would be stating you own it as you are the person
responsible for maintaining that website. I'll ignore the several other
offensive claims on there for the time being.
On 16 Sep
2017, at 21:55, Bryan Fields <Bryan(a)bryanfields.net> wrote:
I was not offering to debate anything, just have a private chat and answer
your questions.
You know if I thought I could actually trust you
to have a private
conversation instead of broadcasting my private emails to a mailing
list I would be happy to answer all your questions.
I cannot have a private conversation as a means to stifle debate on a
subject which affects all members of 44net. The only option we will consider is to release
the source code. To do
anything else when claiming to be for openness is hypocrisy.
That is your opinion, based on assumptions. You dangle a
sword over all users of 44net and think we should be
grateful for not dropping it upon us. You recognize the difference
between leading through coercion and leading with better ideas, no?
More opinion and assumption. FYI several other people have copies of the
source code (which incidentally is not copyrighted by me) and the backend
database is replicated in real time and under the control of other people.
Who?
If anything were to happen to me, or indeed if I
simply chose to walk away
from it,
You walking away would be a good thing. The sort of "help" you've given is
no
different than a drug dealer giving free heroin samples.
44Net would not suffer at all, it would just need
someone else to
host the portal, and I'm sure that would not be an issue. So I fail to see
what this hypothetical sword you refer is.
You own the copyright of what you wrote. You have not licensed it as free
software. Under federal law you can revoke our right to use it at any time.
You've now got us hooked on your non-free software and we can't function
without it. When you decide things are going to change due to petty desires,
we're screwed. It's bitkeeper/pf/ZFS history repeating itself.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net
16 Sep
16 Sep
6:21 p.m.
New subject: Irony explained (was Validating users)
Brian,
There is another option. And I am kind of surprised it doesn't exist,
or maybe it does and I am not aware of it.
Someone who has a BGP announced allocation, like HamWan (for the US)
could create their own (open source) portal for remote (non RF-LAN)
users. They could also support things like OpenVPN in addition to
IPIP, etc. I envisioned a series of regional portals, where non-RF
users would hook up with the one closest to them. If you are in
Europe for instance, I am pretty sure there is someone over there with
a BGP announcement, and there could he a Europe portal for IPIP (and
possibly other types of connections) to register with rather than back
all the way to UCSD.
Kind of like the regional echolink server idea. I guess that is why I
originally asked if the portal Chris was working on would be open
source. Chris must have his reasons, let it rest. But nothing
prevents someone else from doing an open implementation of their own.
Maybe Brian Kantor can comment. But the other reason I was thinking
multiple regional portals was in relation to the continued status of
the UCSD gateway should he pass, or some other political thing with
the college. Seems Brian Kantor not only is dedicated with technical
talent all these years, but has also has started to secure the 44/8 's
future by creating a more legal frame work for it to survive (the ARDC
board, etc) Kudos to him. Either way I seem to think a more
distributed approach of possibly more than one portal makes sense?
Not sure how others feel about that. It requires effort, and I
believe in not shooting a guy in the foot that is doing something.
That is my .02
Steve, KB9MWR
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Bryan Fields <Bryan(a)bryanfields.net> wrote:
Please note, I'm replying onlist as Chris wants to
keep this "private" so
can't see how messed up this is.
17 Sep
17 Sep
3:37 p.m.
New subject: Irony explained (was Validating users)
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Steve L <kb9mwr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Brian,
There is another option. And I am kind of surprised it doesn't exist,
or maybe it does and I am not aware of it.
Someone who has a BGP announced allocation, like HamWan (for the US)
could create their own (open source) portal for remote (non RF-LAN)
users. They could also support things like OpenVPN in addition to
IPIP, etc. I envisioned a series of regional portals, where non-RF
users would hook up with the one closest to them. If you are in
Europe for instance, I am pretty sure there is someone over there with
a BGP announcement, and there could he a Europe portal for IPIP (and
possibly other types of connections) to register with rather than back
all the way to UCSD.
It exists:
http://hamwan.org/Labs/Open%20Peering%20Policy.html
Tom KD7LXL
2623
days inactive
2624
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Bryan Fields -
Steve L -
Tom Hayward