> > I think that if someone reputable steps forward to provide a central
> > database with a legally binding license and affirmation to
> > keep the database
> > and its derivatives "Open-DB," it will be enough.
>
> I disagree. I think the only way to avoid this again is to make it
> impossible to centralize.
If the DB and derivatives are Open under a license and there are dozens of
copies floating around on mirrors, how could an incident like the CDDB fiasco
happen again? I'm talking about centralizing the write (submit) access, not
read access which would be widely distributed.
The license would preclude the possibility of someone taking the DB and
trying to lock everyone out. It is the very foundation of GPL and OSS.
Are you saying that such a license is now worthless?
I think that it is a mistake to rely solely on an async distribution method
(e.g. NNTP, DNS) without protecting the DB with a comprehensive license.
But if such a license is used, the async distribution method adds more
synchronization complexities than the central server scheme while providing
no meaningful benefits.
> Meanwhile, everyone, read up on managing NNTP services. It's more/less than
> you might think.
Yes, I think it is overkill for a CD/music index database. If we collectively
decide on an asynchroneously distributed database, we should write our own
protocol that may be a subset of NNTP, DNS or whatever. But I hope that we
refrain from using a blow torch to light the match.
-- Dave Ahn /ahn nospam at vec.wfubmc.edu