In fact, I thought peer to peer was very cool with the earlier napster, kaaza, emule, etc. against the IPR devil... and that one of the principle is when you free ride in one direction, you should allow others (your peers) to free ride the other direction, which also was (still is?) the essence of peering. So apart from being careful to one's system security, I don't really see a big deal out of tolerating some peering contribution in bandwith in counterpart of the valuable service of free voip teleconference with as many people as needed around the world... Until there is a better system, i.e. a fully equivalent alternative that embeds our preferred values. In the mean time, the other option is to pay for the level of service we want. I fail to see anything else. Mawaki --- "Georg C. F. Greve" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > || On Thu, 17 May 2007 13:10:49 +0200 > || Olivier Nana Nzépa <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > onn> Why Skype is no go solution? > > Besides using your bandwidth for peer to peer purposes that > you have > no knowledge or control of, Skype is proprietary software > relying on a > proprietary protocol. > > So using it excludes people who care about Open Standards or > democratic control of information technology, among other > things. > > Regards, > Georg > > -- > Georg C. F. Greve > <[log in to unmask]> > Free Software Foundation Europe > (http://fsfeurope.org) > Join the Fellowship and protect your freedom! > (http://www.fsfe.org) > What everyone should know about DRM > (http://DRM.info) >