> It's appropriate to repeat it because you're spamming this list again > with your ideas about licensing. You continue your attempts to ride on > the coat tales of the Free Software and Open Source licenses that came > before you.
Jacob, I'm not spamming the list with licensing ideas. I commented that the idea contributions would be used in a software licensed under TESLA, as that is a legitimate caveat for those here, as expressed before. Your further illustration is a testament to the legitimacy of that caveat. > *The TESLA software license is neither 'open source' or 'free'/'free > software' as people commonly understand those terms.* As people commonly understand those terms, I disagree. For the 99.9999% of the users out there, it is free and open source. They don't hit any restriction. Download it, modify it, sell it, redistribute it modified or unmodified. That .0001% that apparently some people feel outraged over, only represents the addition of backdoors/spyware, or commercial theft. > Stop misusing those terms and people will > stop calling you on it. It's a factual debate and the facts aren't on > your side. Shall I say it again? While we can all love Richard Stallman, your choice of definition is not universal. That the software is open source and free, is dependent on your purpose being non-malicious. I'll clarify, as per your reply: FOSS definitions != fact. They are colloquial, they are subjective terms. warning: "spam licensing idea" ahead, involves gpl... We could license it under GPL, but wrap that in a license / software that says you can't get to the GPL license if you have malicious intent (possible?). It just seems easier to use a single license. > To be clear, your xB* software doesn't belong on or-talk because it has > next to nothing to do with Tor. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but there are both security and anonymity implications for passing mail over tor that should be discussed. And if you haven't understood it yet, we are indeed talking about passing mail over tor, because that is exactly what the software will do, presumably. That is what _I_ want to discuss. My only caveat is telling contributors how I plan to use the information they share. I don't want people to be angry that I used information or methods in a way that wasn't suitable to them. That seems like a pretty straight forward issue. For some reason, Seth thought my disclosure of use required comment, in the interests of malware producers who might be contributing in the hopes of introducing malware/spyware. Reductio ad absurdum, that is the logical conclusion to the objection, if it isn't purely for attempting to open discourse about subjective terms. Maybe I should think of Seth's post as less of an objection and more like a wikipedia stub, but then again that isn't how he phrased it so I'll take the comments as they come. > If you configure a mail client to use > Tor, no one else needs to know about it. I remember your same posts about incoginto, tor browser, torpedo, vidalia, torbutton, janusvm, rockate, etc. You're right. Discussion about software projects that implement tor don't belong in or-talk. Sure. How am I supposed to take your comments seriously, Jacob? That lack of evidence doesn't seem to bloster that claim as your motive. Maybe you're just a very easy-going guy and decided here is where you would make your stand for disallowing discussion on or-talk of software that integrates tor, and things that aren't purely about tor project itself. Or maybe you're right, and your post doesn't belong on or-talk, and perhaps neither does this one. In that case, may I suggest that if you have a response, you send it to me personally? I wouldn't want to force you or anyone else to violate your self-proclaimed definition of what belongs on or-talk, after all. At some point you have to step back, abandon the ivory tower, and realize that your definitions are not the only definitions, and if they were that still doesn't elevate them into fact. Your position requires that contention, and is thus untenable. That you've called attention to it in some attempt to extricate Seth is admirable. However, at the end of the day I'm here to discuss the implications of sending mail over tor so I can produce actual software that real people can use, and you're here for some reason other than that. Pardon me if I don't allow you to undermine my purpose. Arrakis
