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:
On 16 Sep 2017, at 21:55, Bryan Fields Bryan@bryanfields.net wrote:
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.
I was not offering to debate anything, just have a private chat and answer your questions.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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@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.
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Steve L kb9mwr@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
-
Bryan Fields -
Steve L -
Tom Hayward