3 ms·

So he forked the project and went his own way. I am not sure I see the issue here. This is how we do open source on the internet. You don't have to join him,

So he forked the project and went his own way. I am not sure I see the issue here. This is how we do open source on the internet. You don't have to join him, but he also has the right to go his own way too.

qcl820DV34 5mo ago
The issue is that the original name, "Freenet", was repurposed for a different codebase.
- sanity 5mo ago
  Different codebase, same purpose. This isn't even the first time we did a ground-up redesign/rewrite of the Freenet codebase, we did this in 2008 with the 0.7 release.
  - qcl820DV34 5mo ago
    Repeating a bad decision does not make it any wiser.
    - sanity 5mo ago
      History will be the judge, and so far it's looking very promising given our progress.
      - darig 5mo ago
        [dead]
      - 16bitvoid 5mo ago
        What does your progress have to do with the name? You're so defensive that you're reasoning with non sequiturs.
        sanity 5mo ago
        What would your success metric be for whether reusing the name was the right decision?
        16bitvoid 5mo ago
        Community size and positive community feedback, which is somewhat tangential to progress, which I assume is in the context of development. Also, the rate at which the original freenet community declines. Number of contributors or pull requests isn't a good metric at the moment since the advent of Claude Code et al. has seen a dramatic uptick in both everywhere.
        sanity 5mo ago
        How is it tangential? Technical success is the primary driver of community growth, adoption, and long-term viability. The more it can do, and the better it does it, the more people will use it.
        16bitvoid 5mo ago
        Community growth might imply technical success (debatable), but technical success does not imply community growth. You can have a very technically successful project, but it doesn't mean it'll be used.
        sanity 5mo ago
        [dead]
  - lallysingh 5mo ago
    Should've called the new one Freenet 2 or Freenet NT.
    - sanity 5mo ago
      Freenet++
    - acheron 5mo ago
      Freenet 3.11 for Workgroups
  - FEELmyAGI 5mo ago
    Neither of you get to be freenet, another project with the name predated it by a lot. and throughout the 90s many ISPs were named $PLACENAME_freenet https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cleveland-freenet https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cleveland-freenet
NamlchakKhandro 5mo ago
No komrade...
nextgens 5mo ago
You're getting this wrong. He has forked the project (to something that does not share the same goals so "fork" is arguable here), took the name, the cash and the goodwill. We went from "we have enough donations/donators" to "how do we pay for the upcoming AWS bill?". As someone who has been fairly active on the "old freenet", I have never cared about money nor funding... but I cannot help but notice that some has likely been misappropriated. Things like the SUMA award (https://web.archive.org/web/20150320201527/http://suma-awards.de/en/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150320201527/http://suma-award...) were awarded specifically for "protection against surveillance and censorship" that the "new freenet" does not even aim to provide. "The board" of the non-profit seems to have been culled just before the decision. I don't know why, I wasn't on it. Maybe @agl can shime in (he was). All I know is that this could have been handled better. It's what I wrote back then on https://www.mail-archive.com/devl@freenetproject.org/msg55279.html https://www.mail-archive.com/devl@freenetproject.org/msg5527...
- sanity 5mo ago
  > to something that does not share the same goals so "fork" is arguable here How do the goals differ, specifically? > but I cannot help but notice that some has likely been misappropriated You had no visibility into the project's finances, yet you're publicly implying financial impropriety without evidence. I've raised substantially more funding for the new Freenet in the past 5 years than was raised during the entire prior 20-year history of the project. > were awarded specifically for "protection against surveillance and censorship" that the "new freenet" does not even aim to provide. In what way does a decentralized network with optional anonymity not protect against surveillance and censorship? > "The board" of the non-profit seems to have been culled just before the decision. I don't know why, I wasn't on it. Maybe @agl can shime in (he was). You also acknowledge here that you don't know what happened. Those board members' departures were at their request because they were no longer actively involved in the project. > All I know is that this could have been handled better. I'm sure you're right about that. But my experience at the time was that the disagreement was fundamentally about the outcome, not the process.
  - abc123abc123 5mo ago

qcl820DV34 5mo ago

The issue is that the original name, "Freenet", was repurposed for a different codebase.

sanity 5mo ago
Different codebase, same purpose. This isn't even the first time we did a ground-up redesign/rewrite of the Freenet codebase, we did this in 2008 with the 0.7 release.
- qcl820DV34 5mo ago
  Repeating a bad decision does not make it any wiser.
  - sanity 5mo ago
    History will be the judge, and so far it's looking very promising given our progress.
    - darig 5mo ago
      [dead]
    - 16bitvoid 5mo ago
      What does your progress have to do with the name? You're so defensive that you're reasoning with non sequiturs.
      - sanity 5mo ago
        What would your success metric be for whether reusing the name was the right decision?
        16bitvoid 5mo ago
        Community size and positive community feedback, which is somewhat tangential to progress, which I assume is in the context of development. Also, the rate at which the original freenet community declines. Number of contributors or pull requests isn't a good metric at the moment since the advent of Claude Code et al. has seen a dramatic uptick in both everywhere.
        sanity 5mo ago
        How is it tangential? Technical success is the primary driver of community growth, adoption, and long-term viability. The more it can do, and the better it does it, the more people will use it.
        16bitvoid 5mo ago
        Community growth might imply technical success (debatable), but technical success does not imply community growth. You can have a very technically successful project, but it doesn't mean it'll be used.
        sanity 5mo ago
        [dead]
- lallysingh 5mo ago
  Should've called the new one Freenet 2 or Freenet NT.
  - sanity 5mo ago
    Freenet++
  - acheron 5mo ago
    Freenet 3.11 for Workgroups
- FEELmyAGI 5mo ago
  Neither of you get to be freenet, another project with the name predated it by a lot. and throughout the 90s many ISPs were named $PLACENAME_freenet https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cleveland-freenet https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cleveland-freenet

NamlchakKhandro 5mo ago

No komrade...

nextgens 5mo ago

You're getting this wrong. He has forked the project (to something that does not share the same goals so "fork" is arguable here), took the name, the cash and the goodwill. We went from "we have enough donations/donators" to "how do we pay for the upcoming AWS bill?". As someone who has been fairly active on the "old freenet", I have never cared about money nor funding... but I cannot help but notice that some has likely been misappropriated. Things like the SUMA award (https://web.archive.org/web/20150320201527/http://suma-awards.de/en/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150320201527/http://suma-award...) were awarded specifically for "protection against surveillance and censorship" that the "new freenet" does not even aim to provide. "The board" of the non-profit seems to have been culled just before the decision. I don't know why, I wasn't on it. Maybe @agl can shime in (he was). All I know is that this could have been handled better. It's what I wrote back then on https://www.mail-archive.com/devl@freenetproject.org/msg55279.html https://www.mail-archive.com/devl@freenetproject.org/msg5527...

sanity 5mo ago
> to something that does not share the same goals so "fork" is arguable here How do the goals differ, specifically? > but I cannot help but notice that some has likely been misappropriated You had no visibility into the project's finances, yet you're publicly implying financial impropriety without evidence. I've raised substantially more funding for the new Freenet in the past 5 years than was raised during the entire prior 20-year history of the project. > were awarded specifically for "protection against surveillance and censorship" that the "new freenet" does not even aim to provide. In what way does a decentralized network with optional anonymity not protect against surveillance and censorship? > "The board" of the non-profit seems to have been culled just before the decision. I don't know why, I wasn't on it. Maybe @agl can shime in (he was). You also acknowledge here that you don't know what happened. Those board members' departures were at their request because they were no longer actively involved in the project. > All I know is that this could have been handled better. I'm sure you're right about that. But my experience at the time was that the disagreement was fundamentally about the outcome, not the process.
- abc123abc123 5mo ago