[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ultimate solution
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Guys, if you're that paranoid, why not insist on the BSD license? If
the man wrote the code himself, it's his prerogative to choose the
terms. You may not like them, but ultimately it's his choice, not
yours, since he wrote the code. I prefer the GPL myself, and use it
for everything I do (also FDL and/or CC for written works). Point of
Kasimir Gabert the owner of Torrify, LLC? If so, I would very much
like to ask him about an important legal question, not related to this
Frivolous lawsuits. Unlawful government seizures. What's YOUR defense?
Protect your assets, keep what you earn, and generate more income at the
Visit http://www.mpassetprotection.com/ today.
On 03/25/2007 10:56 AM, Arrakis wrote:
> You are right. We don't allow governments to subvert our
> software, commercial competitors, or people to install spyware and
> redistributed that way.
> Saying free and open-source software isn't "Free" and "Open Source"
> is giving in to a combination of semantics and snobbery of
> licensing. It isn't as though any organization owns the
> definition of "Free" and "Open Source" and has the authority to
> pin it down to their specific hoops we must jump through, nor
> should anyone assume we have.
> The source is totally free, and that isn't "Free" but free,
> _except_ I don't allow for other commercial services to rip it off
> and use it for their personal gain since I am giving it away to
> the public, and you can't install tracking/spyware/malware in it
> and then redistribute it. Those are pretty much the only
> restrictions. Perhaps GPL fanatics think I owe it to spyware
> manufacturers, or I need to give away my intellectual property to
> every 3rd-rate commercial anonymity service? The bottom line is,
> everyone benefits by these restrictions, except for malware
> manufacturers and commercial anonymity services.
>> I'm no lawyer, but the term in the license above seems like a
>> clear violation of the Debian Free Software Guidelines to me.
> I think your software is a pretty clear violation of the TESLA
> license because you specifically allow spyware and malware to be
> inserted into your software due to your licensing terms, but then
> again, you didn't release yours under TESLA, and nor am I
> required to conform to DFSG. Because I've seen the light of an
> ethical software license agreement, I no longer give much
> credence to "Open-Source" definition or "Free" according to hoyle
> or DFSG.
> But it definitely is a balance that must be struck. Tor probably
> has a good license, even if it isn't 3 clause BSD, because it is
> straight up difficult to use for the average user. But Torpark
> is too easy for conforming to those definitions, because with
> convenience it makes to a little too easy for malware and
> snoopers to reach users because users no longer have to have a
> techinical understanding or perform due dilligence on their
> software, so we have to provide some protection for them. The TESLA
> license is just that.
> To be quite clear, I am enamoured by the HESSLA.
> Regards, Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----