3 Comments

Summary:

Fabian Wenk is very worried: about Skype’s peer-to-peer network using his computer as a node, and thus depending less on its own servers. While, this is part of the Skype End User License Agreement, Wenk and others are worried about this and are trying to finding […]

Fabian Wenk is very worried: about Skype’s peer-to-peer network using his computer as a node, and thus depending less on its own servers. While, this is part of the Skype End User License Agreement, Wenk and others are worried about this and are trying to finding out ways to block Skype. I had brought up some of the security issues with Skype earlier and since then a lot of people have helped identify security risks with Skype. Wenk, upset about Skype writes,

In the first place I did not like the proprietary approach of Skype’s solution even if they provide cost free service and a cost free software. But the protocol they use to communicate is not free, so users/customers of this service depend on Skype as long as they want to use it. Also Skype has the freedom to change their policy any day and charge for their currently free services.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. Om,

    Guys at Columbia seem tohave reverse-engineered the Skype protocol.

    http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~salman/publications/cucs-039-04.pdf

  2. What’s the old saying? If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

    Why is anyone surprised that a service that is both free and proprietary has strings attached?

    Don’t get me wrong, I think the direction they’re taking is interesting, but Skype might not be the best people to take it mainstream.

    I’m not giving up my POTS just yet.

  3. I think Fabian Wenk is administering PCs in his organization and didn’t install Skype himself. Also, if Skype has to “work it out”, the user community has to identify and express its concerns; otherwise how will Skype know of them. How is it stiffling innovation?

Comments have been disabled for this post