[Savannah-hackers] Re: mldonkey licensing

[MLdonkey]

>  If you are the sole copyright holder, it would be allowed.  I don't
>  think those two files would really be Free Software, because users would
>  not really have the right to modify them.  But that's not a official FSF
>  position (I don't really want to start a week-long process to figure out
>  the official position)  IMO, Savannah should not distribute these files.

I will remove the file donkey.lam from the CVS today. I will modify
the configure script to ask and download this file from another
location if the user wants edonkey support. Binary distributions will
be available only from another location, too. This way, only the free
part of mldonkey stays at Savannah, is it OK ?

>  But as a practical matter, obfuscation won't stop script kiddies from
>  screwing things up.  It will only stop good people from improving it.  
>  IIRC, Gnutella had people setting huge TTLs and returning bogus results
>  before the source was released.  

Yes, of course. But it will at least prevent the majority of users
from just modifying two variables in the sources just for their client
to connect to all servers instead of 5. Moreover, mldonkey is only a
client, I can't fix the problems which are in the servers or in the
protocol. 

- MLDonkey