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
