MaidSafe Dev Update - 7th June 2016

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

No one commented on them have they. People can agree/disagree without posting.

I know the dev update posts are read by David and a number of the devs to see the reactions and answer some people’s questions.

Be patient, no one is on the forum 24/7 ready to answer every post immediately.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

2 Likes

I prefer not to as that is more for David to answer and you can also search up licensing of the software which helps to protect your use of the current s/w and MAIDSAFE as well

It is one area I have not gone deeply into, so better I don’t spread any misinformation by trying to answer you

3 Likes

Very valid points…I’d like to hear the answer to that as well.

1 Like

This might get you started…

“NL: The GPL grants a perpetual license and cannot be taken back. Some would correctly argue that MaidSafe could fork the code and change the license of that fork to a proprietary one, which of course we would never do. How can you expect to decentralize the Internet using proprietary software? But this would not change the license of the original code—code that we are actively helping and encouraging others to maintain and develop without us…”

8 Likes

I’ll second the on-off switch idea.

We are based on the UK I think the timing is a factor here, we do try and sleep occasionally :slight_smile:.

The article linked to by @mvanzyl answers/gives our views on your concerns. The patents are owned by the MaidSafe Foundation a registered Scottish charity who grant MaidSafe (the profit making company) a royalty free, in perpetuity license. Scots law dictates that the trustees (@dirvine is not a trustee) must carry out the obligations of the Foundation, set out in the Deed of Trust, these are primarily to foster education and innovation.

Our views on licensing are also discussed in the article. Can I suggest you take a look and let me know if you still have cause for concern? Hopefully you will see we have taken a number of steps at great expense (to both David and the Company) to ensure the network remains open.

8 Likes

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

4 Likes

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

3 Likes

Is this like the old scatter/gather approach? Only in this case for messages? Chunks not affected?

I understand that all chunks are affected.

3 Likes

Here’s the MIO Crate for Rust.

Here’s Maidsafe devs providing a fix for a Windows bug:

Gotta love Open Source :thumbsup:

8 Likes

Can you elaborate this point for me please @Pierce ?

1 Like

@Krishna_Kumar would be the best person to answer this - I will highlight the question to him.

5 Likes

The reason for removing the encryption for transferring data between launcher and apps was to avoid the mere overhead. The transfer is just happing only between the applications on the same machine.

Moreover if me make it configurable, application must start communicating based on each launcher setup and the devs have to cater for for both means of data transfer. Makes it very difficult practically

But since these connections are happening only on the local machine, adding local encryption seems unnecessary.

14 Likes

Thanks for clarifying the reasoning; less overhead is great. I think removing it is the right thing to do.

I tried thinking of possible situations where it may be beneficial to run apps and launcher remotely from each other, but the more I considered it the more I see this would be the ‘wrong’ way to do it. Apps should be designed in an ‘idiomatic SAFE’ manner using a local launcher. So long as app devs are aware of this it will be fine. But you know how it is, if you ‘can’ do it incorrectly, someone surely ‘will’.

Some hypothetical ‘separated’ app / launcher concepts:

  • mobile phone launcher talks to a remote app running on their pc to utilize more powerful cpu
  • massively parallel apps which utilize a single safe credential from a centralized launcher
  • multiple users of an app need to appear as a single entity by using a single remote launcher

However these could all be implemented better without a remote app / launcher.

2 Likes

I love the idea of this product, and you are all working very hard on it. But it sounds like there are far too many problems to be close to an MVP. Some clarity regarding the timeline would be appreciated.

2 Likes

It isn’t a question of “problems”, because, as I understand it, each goal is being reached in an orderly manner.

The project’s style is evidently one of doing each major part very well, making it efficient, before moving on to the next. That’s cool, as long as we know that’s how things are being done.

A clear lower and upper bound on how long each stage will take (e.g., “six to twelve months”) would help us impatient types, but even a clear statement that that isn’t possible would be a welcome crumb to those of us starving for any news of the final goal.

If it was up to me I would put a much less efficient but feature-complete SAFEnet out there (pre-pre-alpha) and then upgrade it. But I don’t know how to do that, so it is for others to make that choice.

1 Like

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

2 Likes