You can already automatically block/drop people who don't have enough "friends" in Gnucleus and some other clients, meaning nodes with a limited horizon. That is picking on those poor people who don't have a lot of bandwidth, IE modem users or people in another country.
Those internal private college LANs won't let you in from the outside, they block you too. They also block anyone on the internal LAN that doesn't have the correct LAN name entered.
At 300 plus nodes they don't seem to have a problem sharing at all so it doesn't matter.
Your horizon on Gnutella is limited even now to a few thousand nodes (or less). You are blocked from the rest of the network, how can you move around to other areas?
Blocking is already happening in many ways, this is just the next step in giving the user more choices, and more power over how he shares.
Some people want to create their own semi private network of friends, you can easily do that now and block any "outside" connections.

That's different. You're bringing up examples that are irrelevant to the topic. I object to blocking as a matter of principle, while the examples you have raised all revolve around blocking due to technical necessity.

But the profit clients should follow some rules than, what they NOT do!

So if we go the old way what will happen? I think we will have a profit dominated Gnutella - do you want this?

Morgwen

__________________
patience is a virtue

This topic is turning slightly political.. however, OK, I'll bite. Profit dominated Gnutella? I use Gnucleus. I'm not affected by advertising in the slightest.

I think that users, given the choice will opt for the advertising-free client overall. Most typical users are not aware of the terms Gnucleus, or even Gnutella. But if you mention BearShare, or LimeWire, these are the brand-names they are looking for. This is why these clients are so successful. Typical users are simply not aware of the OpenSource movement.

Why do you think that we will have a profit dominated Gnutella? I think that this will only affect users who choose to use advertising ridden clients. The keyword in that sentence is choose. I choose to use advertising free software. What you are suggesting is that everyone be forced to use a ad-free client to be able to access the OpenSource specific nodes. Why? I say that if people choose to knowingly load adware ridden clients onto their own computers, hey, who am I to oppose that? I'll happily use my Gnucleus, knowing that I'm using the better client.

It's up to each individual user to decide.

What are some ground rules that you would like to see instituted for the for-profit clients? And more importantly, how would you suggest that rules regarding an open protocol are enforced?

And I'd like to hear from the developers behind the OpenSource p2p Network on this topic.. it's getting quite interesting.

I have a technical necessity to technically remove greed from the network The point was blocking is already happening this just makes it easier for the user to choose.But by using those clients they are making a buck for the corporation from MY CPU cycles, electricity, network resources, and so on and I want a choice not to contribute. That's the point.
The longer you let them on the network, the more they will spam, spy and use us, they can't stop themselves, it's pure greed. So I choose not to provide support for them. They need to go create their own closed network and do what they want with their client only.
Yes you will lose a few nodes, but it's worth it in the long run.
The power is now in the hands of the people, not the corporations.
Debate thread OpenSource P2P Debate, it's about choice
Zeropaid article http://www.zeropaid.com/news/article.../04012002b.php

Well said.

First I'd like to address your point about 'technical necessity'. What I was referring to, and perhaps should have made more clear, is that the examples you brought up of blocking were because of the technical limitations of the Internet. Example being that sending a file from Chile to Russia typically would result in a poor connection, because of poor infrastructure and dropped packets, so on and so forth. Therefore, it is quite acceptable to block nodes such as these. It is a totally different story to block Buddy from the north end of town because he uses LimeWire. See where I'm going with this?

Regarding your point about making a buck from your CPU, this is perhaps the strongest argument that can be made for the OpenSource p2p. And it is one that I can agree with. You're totally right; your CPU is contributing to the wealth of those who would manipulate the Gnutella network for their self-benefit.

That being said however, your CPU is being used for that purpose in a very indirect manner. You don't see ad banners popping up when Joe@BearShare downloads something from you. But yes, I know, it's the principle of the matter. While it is true that your CPU is contributing the wealth of these developers, your CPU is also contributing to the growth of Gnutella and the freedom to share information. And isn't that what it's all about?

How do they spam, spy, and use you? You use Gnucleus, am I right in presuming this?

They will never create their own closed network. It is important to their userbase that they be able to access all nodes, OpenSource or not. And by the definition of OpenSource, they would be able to do that.

My strongest argument on this topic is on the definition of OpenSource.

_snip_
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.

Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.
_/snip_

Please refer to http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html. This is about as straight from the horse's mouth as you can get.

Whoops, I wasn't aware that there was already an ongoing debate on this issue.. Could an admin move my posts over to OpenSource P2P Debate, it's about choice please? Thanks for the heads up, Unreg.

Very well said! I have seen people who cut off uploaders they don't like for one reason or another, and that isn't technical.
I think the GNU license applies to the source code, and not in the way the program is used by the user.
See my response in the other thread, I would like to continue there.

Is this open network still up and running ?
I tried to connect and added all the ip's mentioned in this thread, but I can't get connected.........

__________________
Het algemeen gnutella forum in Nederlands

The last week or so I have been unable to connect to the one 'host cache' - was hoping it was something technical, but maybe the dude's just given up.

Dude who put up the permanent IP as a 'host cache' - please put it back up!

Nos

__________________

"It has served us well, this myth of Christ" -- Pope Leo X

---