Arrakis <arrakistor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Saying free and open-source software isn't "Free" and "Open Source" is > giving in to a combination of semantics and snobbery of licensing. The terms "free software" and "open source software" have been around for a while and so has there meaning. No one said Torpark wasn't delivered free of charge or that its source wasn't open for review. Torpark's license just doesn't give the user enough rights to call Torpark either free software or open source software without causing confusion, raised eyebrows or being laughed at. > 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. So it's totally free, except that it isn't. You're also not giving it away to the public, you're only giving it to those parts of the public you don't discriminate against. > 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. ... and the people who currently don't use Torpark because it isn't free software and the people who don't care about Torpark itself but would appreciate it if the term "free software" wouldn't be watered down. Fabian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature