Re: TorPark mentioned on BoingBoing

[Roger Dingledine <arma@xxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:10:45PM +0100, Arrakistor wrote:
> I  mean,  the  latest  torpark  is  great and all, but does it warrant
> 40,000 unique visitors? I don't really think so. I'm really surprised.

Hi Steve,

Can you enlighten us about the current status with respect to following
the licenses of Firefox, Portable Firefox, and Tor?

I see that there's a link to a source tarball at the bottom of
http://torpark.nfshost.com/ but a) I don't see a license for Tor there,
and b) just copying the licenses for software that is released under the
GPL is not sufficient to follow those licenses. You need to follow section
3 of the GPL: the simplest approach in my opinion is to make the complete
source code available for download from the same site as the binary.

(You may also find it smart to include other documentation/etc files in
the "source" package, since people will look there to obtain everything
they need to recreate your exe, and I'm guessing it doesn't include all
the required files currently.)

It is very important that we resolve this, though. People in the free
software world make their software available with a very specific
set of requirements, and disregarding them makes the whole community
mistrust you.

> And when will they call it Torpark, not TorPark?

At least they don't call it TORpark or TORPARK :)

--Roger