[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re[2]: Free Software and Torpark (was: Ultimate solution)

Fabian et al,

> 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.

Let  us  not be ambigious about the "users" you are talking about. The
specific  "users"  you  are talking about are limited by definition to
only  be  the ones wanting to modify it to include malware/trojans, or
someone  trying  to  turn it into a commercial application, or an evil
government  that  does not abide by the universal declaration of human
rights.  Anyone  who  falls  under  one of those three definitions who
can't consider it free, I'm not concerned about. To _all_ other users,
it  is  free  and open source, and they can do what they want with it,
and modify and distribute it how they please.

The  distinction you are attempting to make anti-thetical to security.
Somehow I just can't see my way clear to advocating modification of my
software  for the use of spyware and commercial competitors. I fail to
see  what  legitimate  interest  you  or  anyone  else have in keeping
software  from  being  legally  protected  against  having trojans and
malware inject into them, and still considering it free.

Instead of attacking my usage of free because it causes some cognitive
dissonance,  you  may  consider  asking  why  other  licenses  haven't
restricted  use  of  their terms from having malware injected into it.
Especially  a  project like Tor. Personally, I don't mind if a license
causes  a  little  more  confusion  to big brother, xyz proxy corp, or
spyware inc, or anyone, if I and my users get more protection. I would
certainly like to see that in the Tor license.

> 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.

No, it is free to the public, we aren't discriminating against who can
use it. We ARE restricting how it can be MODIFIED.

> ... 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,  if  there  really are legitimate potential users out there in
the  cosmos,  waiting  for  me to open it up to malware and trojans so
they  can  feel  the  universal  definition of "Free" is consistent to
whatever  culture  they happen to be from, they can keep holding their
breath.  And  to  the  others  who  don't care enough except to make a
pedantic  distinction,  I'll  be  expecting  a  letter  from  the  FSF
regarding how they own the trademark "Free".

Once  again,  would  anyone else like to see Tor's license add that it
can't  be  modified  to  have malware, trojans, spyware, etc. injected
into it?