Ultimate solution

[Andrew Del Vecchio]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Guys, if you're that paranoid, why not insist on the BSD license? If
the man wrote the code himself, it's his prerogative to choose the
terms. You may not like them, but ultimately it's his choice, not
yours, since he wrote the code. I prefer the GPL myself, and use it
for everything I do (also FDL and/or CC for written works). Point of
info: is

Kasimir Gabert the owner of Torrify, LLC? If so, I would very much
like to ask him about an important legal question, not related to this
particular discussion.

Thanks,
Andrew

- ---

Frivolous lawsuits. Unlawful government seizures. What's YOUR defense?
Protect your assets, keep what you earn, and generate more income at the
same time!
Visit http://www.mpassetprotection.com/ today.




On 03/25/2007 10:56 AM, Arrakis wrote:
> Nick,
>
> You  are  right.  We  don't allow governments to subvert our
> software, commercial competitors, or people to install spyware and
> redistributed that way.
>
> Saying free and open-source software isn't "Free" and "Open Source"
> is giving  in to a combination of semantics and snobbery of
> licensing. It isn't  as  though  any  organization owns the
> definition of "Free" and "Open  Source"  and has the authority to
> pin it down to their specific hoops we must jump through, nor
> should anyone assume we have.
>
> The source is totally free, and that isn't "Free" but free,
> _except_ I don't allow for other commercial services to rip it off
> and use it for their  personal  gain since I am giving it away to
> the public, and you can't install tracking/spyware/malware in it
> and then redistribute it. Those  are  pretty  much  the  only
> restrictions. Perhaps GPL fanatics think  I  owe  it  to spyware
> manufacturers, or I need to give away my intellectual  property to
> every 3rd-rate commercial anonymity service? The  bottom  line  is,
> everyone benefits by these restrictions, except for malware
> manufacturers and commercial anonymity services.
>
>> I'm no lawyer, but the term in the license above seems like a
>> clear violation of the Debian Free Software Guidelines to me.
>
> I think your software is a pretty clear violation of the TESLA
> license because you specifically allow spyware and malware to be
> inserted into your  software due to your licensing terms, but then
> again, you didn't release  yours  under TESLA, and nor am I
> required to conform to DFSG. Because  I've seen the light of an
> ethical software license agreement, I  no  longer give much
> credence to "Open-Source" definition or "Free" according to hoyle
> or DFSG.
>
> But it definitely is a balance that must be struck. Tor probably
> has a good license, even if it isn't 3 clause BSD, because it is
> straight up difficult  to  use  for  the average user. But Torpark
> is too easy for conforming  to those definitions, because with
> convenience it makes to a  little  too  easy  for  malware and
> snoopers to reach users because users no longer have to have a
> techinical understanding or perform due dilligence  on  their
> software, so we have to provide some protection for them. The TESLA
> license is just that.
>
> To be quite clear, I am enamoured by the HESSLA.
> http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/hessla.php
>
> Regards, Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGBq2ggwZR2XMkZmQRA+U3AKC6CrXz4GQBjlr8kMbei1wM0YJ7GACgiRpB
XXkBNmUpbxwOl0xySnJNuHY=
=ObHI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----