IP listed in active transfers

Post by **GargoyleMT** » 2004-09-29 11:11

cue wrote:Idea added. Hope DC++ as general is going to take it into consideration.

Take... what into consideration? That not everyone was going to be happy with the IP column? That was known as soon as the patch was submitted. (It is the same with every feature, some will love it, some will hate it, most don't care or notice.)

cue · Post by **cue** » 2004-09-30 05:54

Twink wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but DC++ is opensource so that people can modify it?
Now you're trying to say we should add a feature to stop people modding clients?
am I the only one to think this is crazy?
Not to mention the amount of work you're asking to be put in to 'hide' a users ip when its not exactly hard to get them anyway.

What are they gonna do with your ip anyway, worst i see happening is being added to a firewall to block you downloading.

DC++ as such is open source, but it does follow a licence called GPL.
I have not read that cover to cover but as I understand it you cannot make another program form the source identifying itself as an already GPL registered program.
GNU is a protection as much as a statement and guideline about open source.

To hide the IP is just one of the features that could be implemented, can't you see the possibilities?
You could have everything that is not allowed now, like slot limit, speed limit, user to user block and so on and so on....
Because the hub could enable or disable what features they what. Then this would not be a question about having a client that does or does not allow this and that, but you pick the hubs that have the features open that you like.

Shroom · Post by **Shroom** » 2004-09-30 06:48

cue wrote:To hide the IP is just one of the features that could be implemented, can't you see the possibilities?

Actually: No. Maybe you could try to present us with some substantial reason to why this particular feature should be removed? Otherwise the developers definitely wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t spend the time and effort necessary to make this change.

edit: spelling

ivulfusbar · Post by **ivulfusbar** » 2004-09-30 07:02

This discussion is not leading anywhere, same argument over and over again. Please read all posts before submitting arguments.

Todi · Post by **Todi** » 2004-09-30 07:45

cue wrote:DC++ as such is open source, but it does follow a licence called GPL.
I have not read that cover to cover but as I understand it you cannot make another program form the source identifying itself as an already GPL registered program.
GNU is a protection as much as a statement and guideline about open source.

What? You need to go back and read the license closely.

cue · Post by **cue** » 2004-09-30 08:31

Todi wrote:
cue wrote:DC++ as such is open source, but it does follow a licence called GPL.
I have not read that cover to cover but as I understand it you cannot make another program form the source identifying itself as an already GPL registered program.
GNU is a protection as much as a statement and guideline about open source.

What? You need to go back and read the license closely.

Its a long and boring read and I don't have the time, but my friend that used this some time ago sad this was the case and with a search of the FAQ text I found this.

"The GPL requires the maker of a version to place his or her name on it, to distinguish it from other versions and to protect the reputations of other maintainers."

Note "to distinguish it from other versions"

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... edVersions

Todi · Post by **Todi** » 2004-09-30 08:51

Er.. ok. I get your point now. But how is someones name in the credits gonna help with the issue discussed in this thread? Please explain.

ivulfusbar · Post by **ivulfusbar** » 2004-09-30 08:53

cue: read the license instead of the FAQ. If you haven't read the license, then you will not understand the FAQ. And to continue an argument without having read it is utterly useless for us. Quote a FAQ to a license you haven't even read. Bahaa..

cue · Post by **cue** » 2004-09-30 10:05

ivulfusbar wrote:cue: read the license instead of the FAQ. If you haven't read the license, then you will not understand the FAQ. And to continue an argument without having read it is utterly useless for us. Quote a FAQ to a license you haven't even read. Bahaa..

Well, your right.
But sorry to say I have a day job :wink: