Free Software and Torpark (was: Ultimate solution)

[Kasimir Gabert]

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
read.

My most humble apologies,
Kasimir

On 3/25/07, Arrakis <arrakistor at gmail.com> 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?
>
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
>


-- 
Kasimir Gabert