Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 21:41:54 -0400 (EDT) From: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> Cc: Matthew Hunt <mph@FreeBSD.ORG>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/ijb - Imported sources Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980503213401.20104G-100000@sasami.jurai.net> In-Reply-To: <19980504032939.07389@follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Explain to me how junk-buster is different from changing channels when commercials come up... On Mon, 4 May 1998, Eivind Eklund wrote: > This describe why you're inconvenienced. Sure, I agree that banners are > inconvenient - I'm none too happy about having to download banners myself. > > But let me do a slight re-phrasing of you: > > "I'm on a thight budget, with 3 other people that use software too. The > last thing I need is to have to pay for the commercial software we use." No, I stated that I was -bandwidth- constrained. Since I'm paying for my bandwidth I should be able to invoke the 'theft' clause as well shouldn't I? > Web pages with banners generally come with a license, too. This license as > often as not explictly forbid modifying the HTML and pictures before > displaying the pages. So, what you're doing is pirating web-pages. I don't > think we should have cracker tools in the ports collection, and I > _especially_ don't think we should have power-tools in the ports collection > labelled as cracker tools. JunkBuster doesn't modify the HTML. You should really check it out before you bash it. > Besides which I believe that filtering those banners is harmful in the long > run - the $.01 to $.08 you rip the web page owner off each time you view a > page without an ad _do_ add up. Consider it my dollar vote to protest in favor of commercial entities finding a less annoying means of capitalization. > Oh, and a new point I just thought of: FreeBSD is likely to be considered > associates-before-the-fact if we distribute something labelled so that it > can be considered a tool for crime. I can look up the relevant statutes if > necessary - but I believe this can map onto the telecom laws they used > against Craig Neindorff (sp?). Any relevant californians feeling like going > to jail over a package description? :-( (No, I did not really want this last > argument.) That would be 'Neidorf'. You should really get better information before trying to draw parallels between this issue the E911 case. I'd walk across the street or call him to get the facts on that one fisthand if I didn't think he wanted to put that whole issue behind him. (He works the same place I do aparently :) /* Matthew N. Dodd | A memory retaining a love you had for life winter@jurai.net | As cruel as it seems nothing ever seems to http://www.jurai.net/~winter | go right - FLA M 3.1:53 */ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980503213401.20104G-100000>