<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FriendFeed, Facebook and the Insider Logroll</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/wordpress/2009/08/11/friendfeed-facebook-and-the-insider-logroll/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/wordpress/2009/08/11/friendfeed-facebook-and-the-insider-logroll/</link>
	<description>A journal of geekery, music and joy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 03:59:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ken Kennedy</title>
		<link>http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/wordpress/2009/08/11/friendfeed-facebook-and-the-insider-logroll/comment-page-1/#comment-148325</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Kennedy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:41:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/wordpress/2009/08/11/friendfeed-facebook-and-the-insider-logroll/#comment-148325</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m slotted right in there with you, Dave. This comes out of the blue, and while I&#039;m trying to have faith in at least some of the founders doing  &quot;the right thing&quot; (Paul Buchheit in particular appears to want that, at least), I&#039;m honestly pessimistic.

But we&#039;re stuck relying on good faith. Stuck sharecropping. Again. *sigh* Serves me right, I suppose...in my explorations of a way forward, I&#039;m pretty much bound and determined to stick to solutions that protect against this happening again. 

There appear to be 2 decent ways: 
1) &quot;legal&quot;/explicitt assertion (ie, founder says, if I sell this thing, I&#039;ll make a copy/GPL the code/whatever)

2) architectural and technical design (decentralized and federated, and ideally already either open-sourced, or with F/OSS implementations available.)

Ideally, both, though with #2, you&#039;re semi-protected from the requirement of #1.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m slotted right in there with you, Dave. This comes out of the blue, and while I&#8217;m trying to have faith in at least some of the founders doing  &#8220;the right thing&#8221; (Paul Buchheit in particular appears to want that, at least), I&#8217;m honestly pessimistic.</p>
<p>But we&#8217;re stuck relying on good faith. Stuck sharecropping. Again. *sigh* Serves me right, I suppose&#8230;in my explorations of a way forward, I&#8217;m pretty much bound and determined to stick to solutions that protect against this happening again. </p>
<p>There appear to be 2 decent ways:<br />
1) &#8220;legal&#8221;/explicitt assertion (ie, founder says, if I sell this thing, I&#8217;ll make a copy/GPL the code/whatever)</p>
<p>2) architectural and technical design (decentralized and federated, and ideally already either open-sourced, or with F/OSS implementations available.)</p>
<p>Ideally, both, though with #2, you&#8217;re semi-protected from the requirement of #1.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.243 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2010-03-19 07:51:44 -->
<!-- Compression = gzip -->