Re: [GNUnet-developers] Java (was Freenet 0.5)

[Krista Bennett]

Jan Marco Alkema hath spoken thusly on Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 07:12:31PM -0800:
> I agree with you. I think there should be different GUI?s (Java, Windows
> /API, GTK, PHP) which interface with the gnunet core (port 2087).

And all are possible, as Christian mentioned; right now, however, getting
the core going is really the main priority IMHO...

> The java classes of cdfoon gui can be decompiled very easy. In mine opinion
> it could be used for gnunet for an initial version. It has search screen and
> a result screen, etc.

This Java search/results GUI code actually already existed at one point,
but for the reasons Christian mentioned, we moved to gtk.

> The problem is copy right laws. If you use your own computer you are
> responsible for face the copy right laws (see it as a FTP utility). If you
> download it from GUI of person A. Person A get a copy right problem.

Er... one doesn't download anything from someone else's GUI :)

Copyright doesn't have anything to do with the GUI issue, unless I'm
missing something glaringly obvious here. You do understand, I hope, that
the GUI is only an interface to the underlying system...

> I know that there are a lot of windows (API) sources available on the
> internet. Why should we use these programs to get a initial version of the
> windows version?

Windows sources for what? (Sorry, I'm missing something here) I don't have
an exhaustive list of issues concerned with the Windows port at the
moment, but I can tell you that at the moment the porting issues have
nothing to do with the lack of available software or sources. OpenSSL and
gtk are both accessible for Windows, and there is a variety of available
compilation environments.

The GUI has nothing to do with the lack of Windows port :) I'm afraid the
issues are a little more fundamental than that and simply require me to be 
able to expend the time to find what needs to be changed and change it.

I'm sorry if it seems we're all misunderstanding the message here, but I 
get the sinking feeling that some of us are talking about apples and 
others talking about oranges :)

- Krista

(Jan Marco: Misschien was jouw bedoeling anders, maar wat je zei over de
GUI maakt geen zin; de bedoeling van GNUnet is dat als er iets op de
computer van person A zit kan je downloaden zonder weten op welke computer
de file eigenlijk opgeslagen is. Man kan zeggen dat person A "plausible
deniability" heeft (dat kan ik niet vertalen :) als hij kan aannemelijk
zeggen dat de file van ergens (of iemand) anders kwam en dat hij niet wist
wat de inhoud van de file was. Hij kan altijd misschien wel een
"intermediary" zijn. Het is moeilijk om te zeggen dat er een copyright
violation was als het niet mogelijk is om te zeggen *precis* waar de file
vandaan kwam. Door versleutelen van kleine stukjes van de file en door
"redirection" is dit uitvoerbaar. Volgens mij heeft dit niks mee te maken
met de GUI; alleen maar met de core system. De soort van GUI zegt niks
over de oorsprong van de data. Heb ik jouw bedoeling over GUI en copyright
helemaal verkeerd begrepen? :)

(Apologies to the list for the foreign babble and to Jan Marco for
slaughtering the Dutch language, but I wanted to make sure we're all
talking about the same thing here :)

-- 
***********************************************************************
Krista Bennett                               address@hidden
Graduate Student
Interdepartmental Program in Linguistics
Purdue University

         If at first you don't succeed, try again. Then quit.         
             There's no use being a damn fool about it.
                           -- W.C. Fields