Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 03:29:39 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> Cc: Matthew Hunt <mph@FreeBSD.ORG>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/ijb - Imported sources Message-ID: <19980504032939.07389@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980503205621.20104E-100000@sasami.jurai.net>; from Matthew N. Dodd on Sun, May 03, 1998 at 08:59:31PM -0400 References: <19980503230438.48318@follo.net> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980503205621.20104E-100000@sasami.jurai.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[taken to -chat] On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 08:59:31PM -0400, Matthew N. Dodd wrote: > On Sun, 3 May 1998, Eivind Eklund wrote: > > Should't this be under ATT (for "Automated Theft Tool")? ;-) > > > > Refusing to download ads from the WWW is very bad practice. Those ads are > > paying for the service you're using. I'm not even certain we should have > > the above program as a port - I don't think we'd have a 'automated > > crack-on-download' tool, for instance, and this is actually fairly similar. > > I strongly disagree. Arguments! Come up with arguments! > The only reason I have a problem with banners is that they break caching > at times and are hosted on separate sites than the content and often stall > the loading of the web page. > > I'm on a 28.8 with 3 other people and about 8 to 16 systems. The last > thing I need is some lame ass animated GIF banner cloging my line. 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." 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. 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. 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.) Eivind. 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?19980504032939.07389>