Re: Free Software and Torpark

[Michael_google gmail_Gersten]

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.


Well, here's what google returns:

fsf.org
gnu.org
download.com
Wikipedia's entry on free software
tucows.com
shareware.com
freewarefiles.com
completelytestedfreesoftware.com
And a page for a single program for calculating one type of primes.

The first two are the "Free to manipulate as you want". The next 5
software sites are "Free to distribute, but restricted usage" sites.
There's one "meta" site, and one oddball single program listing.

Followed by 8 related searches. Normally I get 100 hits on one page;
this time, only 9.

Re: Free Software and Torpark

[Fabian Keil]

H D Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Re[2]: Free Software and Torpark (was: Ultimate solution)

[H D Moore]

My employer's product has RFC1314 support for sending exploit traffic ;-) 
http://www.bpointsys.com


-HD

On Monday 26 March 2007 14:18, Michael_google gmail_Gersten wrote:
> I worry about the day that someone actually does follow that RFC,
> wreck havok, and then in court use the defense, "I am following all
> the official standards of the communications network, and if there is
> a problem, it is with the other users who do not observe the
> standards".

Re: Re[2]: Free Software and Torpark (was: Ultimate solution)

[Michael_google gmail_Gersten]

On 3/25/07, Matt Ghali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Perhaps what you are looking for is full support for RFC 3514.


Was that the "evil bit" RFC?

I worry about the day that someone actually does follow that RFC,
wreck havok, and then in court use the defense, "I am following all
the official standards of the communications network, and if there is
a problem, it is with the other users who do not observe the
standards".

Re: Free Software and Torpark (was: Ultimate solution)

[Brad Freeman]

On 25 mar 2007, at 22.48, H D Moore wrote:

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.

-HD


Amen, Preach it Brother HD!

Brad

Re[2]: Free Software and Torpark (was: Ultimate solution)

[Matt Ghali]

Perhaps what you are looking for is full support for RFC 3514.

Best of luck.

matto


On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Arrakis wrote:


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.



[EMAIL PROTECTED]<
  Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity.
- Marshall McLuhan

Re[2]: Free Software and Torpark (was: Ultimate solution)

[Arrakis]

I'll address these issues since you didn't feel it was
necessary to read the followups on the thread you posted:

1) tor devs are not qualified to review the code. Shava Nerad of the
Tor project  asked me to refer someone to do QA on 3rd party win32 apps for the 
Tor
project, which I did. Will it ever happen? Who knows.

2) Those are not issues with Torpark but the windows operating system.
However, in a future release of Torpark we are working on even the
faults of the win os will be addressed. Those issues are 1) the way
windows treats memory, and 2) the way windows treats applications and
may cache them. Since then I have removed the section about it not
leaving traces, because it simply does as that is the nature of
windows.

3)  I have a step by step for building Torpark. Further, If you bother
to read the code, you will see it is well documented.

Regards,
Steve


> TorPark is not recommended by any Tor devs or others
> working with/on Tor.

> TorPark has some unresolved issues:
> .

> And it is not documented well.

> Regards,



>  
> 
> Now that's room service!  Choose from over 150,000 hotels
> in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

Re: Free Software and Torpark (was: Ultimate solution)

[light zoo]

--- H D Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sunday 25 March 2007 14:06, Fabian Keil wrote:
> > ...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.
> 
> -HD

TorPark is not recommended by any Tor devs or others
working with/on Tor.

TorPark has some unresolved issues:
.

And it is not documented well.

Regards,



 

Now that's room service!  Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

Re: Free Software and Torpark (was: Ultimate solution)

[Philippe Gauthier]

> 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?

-1

Re[4]: Free Software and Torpark (was: Ultimate solution)

[Arrakis]

Kasimir,

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.

Regards,
Arrakis

> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>>
>>

Re[2]: Free Software and Torpark

[Arrakis]

Paolo,

Just because there are laws against murder doesn't mean that people
don't do it. However, the law does make it actionable if they do
commit murder.

Regards,
Arrakis

>> 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.

> It just makes no sense to say "it's free except for..." if you intend 
> free as in freedom. It's the same kind of idea of those who think that
> "Tor should be working for everyone except for criminals...".

> About the "malware" problem, i just report this quote from the OS 
> Definition page on wikipedia:
> "Back in the 1980s, some software which was given away had license terms
> that specifically prohibited the police or military of the Government of
> South Africa from using the program because of objections to apartheid.
> While this is a laudable goal, it's not relevant to include it in a 
> software license. Beyond which, such organizations might simply ignore
> the restrictions anyway."

>> 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.

> What if the license was to block criminals from using the program? Would
> you still consider it free? What if the license was to block people that
> commited a crime in the past? What if the license was to block people 
> that are more likely to commit a crime for their personal psychological
> background?
> Would you still consider it "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?

> No.

> Paolo

Re: Free Software and Torpark (was: Ultimate solution)

[H D Moore]

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". 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.

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?

>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.

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.

-HD

Re: Re[2]: 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

Re: Free Software and Torpark

[Paolo Palmieri]

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.


It just makes no sense to say "it's free except for..." if you intend 
free as in freedom. It's the same kind of idea of those who think that 
"Tor should be working for everyone except for criminals...".


About the "malware" problem, i just report this quote from the OS 
Definition page on wikipedia:
"Back in the 1980s, some software which was given away had license terms 
that specifically prohibited the police or military of the Government of 
South Africa from using the program because of objections to apartheid. 
While this is a laudable goal, it's not relevant to include it in a 
software license. Beyond which, such organizations might simply ignore 
the restrictions anyway."



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.


What if the license was to block criminals from using the program? Would 
you still consider it free? What if the license was to block people that 
commited a crime in the past? What if the license was to block people 
that are more likely to commit a crime for their personal psychological 
background?

Would you still consider it "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?


No.

Paolo

Re[2]: Free Software and Torpark (was: Ultimate solution)

[Arrakis]

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

Re: Free Software and Torpark (was: Ultimate solution)

[Fabian Keil]

Arrakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Saying free and open-source software isn't "Free" and "Open Source" is
> giving  in to a combination of semantics and snobbery of licensing.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

... 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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature