docs(faq): add FAQ on legality of running a Freenet peer - #107
Merged
Conversation
Addresses a common question about legal exposure from automatically routing/caching third-party contract state. Notes the DMCA's conduit/caching safe harbors (17 U.S.C. §512) as evidence that infrastructure providers are treated distinctly from publishers, while being explicit that this isn't a blanket legal guarantee. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01UMFQxiSpfoUqxrEqQp5JXR
Two rounds of Fable 5 review on the new "Is it legal to run a Freenet
peer?" entry:
- Add a direct "Generally speaking, yes" lead so ordinary readers get
an answer up front instead of opening mid-argument.
- Soften "so it offers no such cover" to "should not be relied on for
cover", matching the existing anonymity FAQ entry's own hedge
("should not be relied on as one") instead of overstating it.
- Reframe the closing paragraph around the automatic-vs-knowing
distinction and link to the existing anonymity FAQ entry rather than
restating it, so the deterrent point for bad-faith readers doesn't
read as a threat to ordinary operators.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01UMFQxiSpfoUqxrEqQp5JXR
Split the nested §512 sentence, replace backwards references
('doing the latter', bare 'above' link) with forward ones, and
tighten the closing anonymity caveat.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01UMFQxiSpfoUqxrEqQp5JXR
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01UMFQxiSpfoUqxrEqQp5JXR
This was referenced Aug 7, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Problem
People considering running a Freenet peer sometimes worry they could face legal trouble simply because the peer automatically routes or caches third-party contract state it doesn't control.
Approach
Adds one new FAQ entry, placed immediately after "How does Freenet handle harmful content?", explaining that running infrastructure which automatically routes/caches third-party material is legally distinct from intentionally publishing it. Cites 17 U.S.C. §512 (DMCA conduit/caching safe harbors) and the U.S. Copyright Office's explanation of §512 as concrete evidence of this distinction, while being explicit that:
No claim is made that Freenet peers are automatically covered by the DMCA, and no claim is made that Freenet determines what content is legal.
Testing
hugo --gc --minify— site builds cleanlypython3 scripts/check-links.py --self-test— passespython3 scripts/check-links.py hugo-site/public— no broken internal links (222 pages checked)[AI-assisted - Claude]