Well, bit by bit. Especially if you use it where it already does (to some degree).

When the first bundle had a huge boost in last-minute sales after the devs offered to free the source of 4 of the 5 games, I had hoped, they would keep that. I was one of those who paid when they offered to free the games, and I’m pretty sure that they got a huge boost in people who knew the Humble Indie Bundle due to that.

But when the second did not offer freeing the source, I did not pay, and I feared they would go further down that track.

Now Steam comes to GNU/Linux, so being cross-plasform isn’t unique for the Humble Indie Bundle anymore. And they dropped cross-platform support and added DRM. Somehow I saw that coming

Well, they sell their brand while it still holds, but by doing that they burn the ones who brought them where they are today.

Never put effort in a project where you have to *trust* the creator to not misuse it. Free copyleft licenses are a safeguard for contributors - not only the coders, but also for those who promote the project.

I had that experience once with an unfree p2p app. I poured hours, days and months into it to see my work wasted and misused in the end.

That’s why I decided to only ever support free copyleft programs in which others but the main authors have some code. Then they can’t easily make it unfree - and thus steal my unpaid work.

That’s why I stopped supporting the humble indie bundle when the second bundle did not free the games.

previous comment was by me - forgot to login.

So look at the GPL. That’s a really great hack on the copyright system.

same for me.

well, flattr funding blogs, kickstarter generating millions, the humble indie bundle making millions, startnext moving into the scope of kickstarter as non-profit organization. Sounds quite good - it just took some time to become real.

I’m using Sone, too, and I finally understood why people like Facebook - and could experience that with Sone without having to give up my privacy. And due to the WebOfTrust, it even has better spam resistance than twitter et. al.

I have several IDs: An official ID, one for talking with friends (they can know I’m that one) and an anonymous one which not even my wife knows (she could, but she does not want to). The anonymous ones allow me to speak my mind without fearing future repercussions.

  http://freenetproject.org/

Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification!

So the only license which would be incompatible is the Qt Commercial Developer License.

http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing/

If Nokia wanted to merge KDElibs into Qt, they’d have to drop that.

I don’t really see how they should be able to merge as long as Nokia requires copyright assignment.

KDE is GPL. Qt is unfree OR LGPL OR GPLv3, as the developer wishes. Qt with KDE could only be GPL.

And I don’t see a reason to deprive free software developers of the advantage which KDE offers them over developers of unfree software.

Good to see a clear technical answer - that's also what I thought:

They can only poison Gnutella 0.4 and early versions of 0.6 - that's a very low percentage of todays popular clients. In effect that means, they can't poison real life Gnutella clients.

Since Freenet is not based on Gnutella-0.4, they can't pollute it, either.

They then state that they can't poison BitTorrent (page 11, bottom left).

They say they can poison eMule on the sub-part level.

So to me this looks like a failed attempt to develop a way to bootstrap commercial leech networks on existing p2p networks without exposing the files those networks share internally.

Interesting would be to see what happens when the first people copy that code to their client, but turn it around to poison the files of paying customers. It would just require switching one bool: "Is paying customer" -> "is pirate", and they will suffer from their choice of a poisonable network.

But considering the claims against LimeWire I read last week "you should change the Gnutella network, so it can't be used for piracy anymore" this paper looks like a part of a chessgame:

Step 1: Claim that Gnutella can be changed to no longer allow piracy.
Step 2: Make Gnutella developers say, that this isn't viable.
Step 3: Make researchers with pseudo-reputation state that it is possible to have something to show the politicians: "it's easy and it works".
Step 4: Tell teh politicians to force the Gnutella developers to deploy the (nonworking) scheme in new versions of their software.
Step 5: Force the devs to remove the parts which foil the scheme but also are the safety against compromised files.
Step 6: Wait till the network goes down.
Step 7: Leech from the next network.

Basic BitTorrent isn't interesting to them, because they can easily control one BitTorrent server to allow only their own modified clients (as long as these don't support the DHT, but they can just strip that out).

Yes, but Apple shipping them was the droplet of water which sufficed to make me leave.

I used MacOSX since 10.0.4, and though it got faster up till (excluding) 10.3, it also reduced my usage options - maybe you didn't experience that.

After I switched on, Apple suddenly sent clicks on songs in iTunes to a advertising company. That's when I decided that contrary to my former thoughts, the chances of me coming back would be extremely slim.

I'm a happy KDE user now, and KDE 4.1 gave back what I lost when I left Apple.

If you want to see my way (in german): http://bah.draketo.de/