H D Moore <torspam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sunday 25 March 2007 14:06, Fabian Keil wrote: > > ... 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. > > Watered down? C'mon. Do a google search for "free software". At least > half of the results refer to software that is "free as in beer" vs "free > as in speech". According to Google my search request for "free software" "looks similar to automated requests from a computer virus or spyware application" and can't be processed right now, so I couldn't verify your claim. According to the first MSN Search page the ratio is 9 to 1 in favour of the FSF interpretation, though. > If you want to show the difference between "free" and > "Free", capitalize it like everyone else. Just because something isn't > "Free" doesn't mean you have to pay for it. I never said you had to pay for Torpark. > Speaking of freedom, what about a giving a software developer the > freedom to prevent commercial abuse? Would you prefer to give them the > "Freedom" to stop working on their software because they don't want it > ripped off by scumbags? If by "commercial abuse" you mean "commercial use", they already have both of these freedoms and I never argued that they shouldn't have them. > >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. > > I argue that anyone trying to redefine the english word "free" to only > mean software licensed according to the FSF guidelines deserves to be > laughed at. It's not about redefining anything. Please have a look at <20070326162931.GE13237@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> if you haven't already. > This is a stupid argument to start with -- ignoring the license, TorPark > should be recommended based on the quality of the code and the features > of the software. If TorPark LLC does something evil at a later date, > stop recommending them. I don't know anything about the quality of the code and I never recommended Torpark or Torpark LLC in the first place (not because of its code quality or its license, but because I don't know enough about it). I would assume though, that license and code quality aren't completely unrelated and that non-free licenses make it less likely that the code gets audited by third parties that aren't paid to do it. Fabian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature