[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Free Software and Torpark (was: Ultimate solution)
You are right, I think that is too broad and I will ask that the
license give more precise definitions. It was to include
anonymity/proxy services, I'll make sure it gets revised.
> It would be good if I could read, I am sorry for posting that I saw
> the license as free. Reading through it fully, it definitely is not.
> The terms of the license are way too broad. Trying to exclude malware
> and spyware by licensing the program under a license which states that
> it cannot be used to anything that restricts the rights of the user
> will not work. First of all, malware does not restrict the rights of
> the user. Second of all, malware doesn't care about licenses, and the
> creators of much of the spyware and malware are not known to the
> world, so even if they break this license nothing will happen to them.
> Another thing that doesn't really make sense to me about the license
> is that it restricts the right to modify the program if it uses a
> commercial "connectivity service". I am not a lawyer, but isn't my
> ISP a commercial "connectivity service"? It seems to me that this
> program cannot be redistributed at all, because it can only be used
> with a commercial "connectivity service", and therefore any
> modification will break the license.
> I take back what I said earlier, and I am sorry for causing so many
> people to stare at their monitor in disbelief from what they just
> My most humble apologies,
> On 3/25/07, Arrakis <arrakistor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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?