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 >> >>
