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?
Regards,
Steve