Opened 10 years ago

Closed 10 years ago

#2300 closed defect (fixed)

license faq omits polipo

Reported by: keb Owned by: phobos
Priority: Low Milestone:
Component: Webpages/Website Version:
Severity: Keywords:
Cc: Actual Points:
Parent ID: Points:
Reviewer: Sponsor:

Description

https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en#License

privoxy is mentioned but not polipo which is now distibuted with tbb.

Child Tickets

Change History (9)

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by keb

and torbutton seems to have a distinct license also

comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by atagar

Do we really want to try to maintain a listing of all the project licenses here? This page seems like something that'll be out of date more often than not. Alternatively we could just drop all the non-Tor licenses and say something like "other software may have different licenses. please check their respective copyrights for details".

comment:3 in reply to:  2 ; Changed 10 years ago by phobos

Replying to atagar:

Do we really want to try to maintain a listing of all the project licenses here? This page seems like something that'll be out of date more often than not. Alternatively we could just drop all the non-Tor licenses and say something like "other software may have different licenses. please check their respective copyrights for details".

I like this plan better than listing everything out.

comment:4 in reply to:  3 Changed 10 years ago by arma

Replying to phobos:

I like this plan better than listing everything out.

Me too.

comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by keb

perhaps it is also risky to link to the license page for each of the softwares in the bundles.
it would be convenient for enquiries and may facilitate adoption of the bundles by more legal-sensitive organizations.

comment:6 in reply to:  description ; Changed 10 years ago by phobos

Replying to keb:

https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en#License

privoxy is mentioned but not polipo which is now distibuted with tbb.

Thinking back about this, we didn't change the page because it was the official EFF page as written in 2005. We kept it verbatim to what they wrote. They just haven't updated it in 5 years because other than the licensing, there is no need.

comment:7 in reply to:  6 Changed 10 years ago by arma

Replying to phobos:

Thinking back about this, we didn't change the page because it was the official EFF page as written in 2005. We kept it verbatim to what they wrote. They just haven't updated it in 5 years because other than the licensing, there is no need.

Yep. I fixed it periodically as the license changed a bit. But then I stopped.

We should fix it once and for all so it doesn't actually include license stuff that will become obsolete. For example, we might answer with a link to a faq entry on the general faq that asks what the various Tor components there are in the bundles and what their licenses are.

Or we could just ditch the license faq entry from the legal faq entirely. Wendy, thoughts about whether we actually need it there at all?

comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by wseltzer

If we wanted a comprehensive FAQ of every legal question one could have, there'd be a case for including licensing, and trademark policy as well. This is not that FAQ.

For this FAQ, if we frequently get questions about licensing, it might be good to include a link to the general FAQ's license discussion. If not, I see no problem removing the license question entirely, as it's not particularly a relay operator-specific question.

comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by phobos

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

I removed the license question. See svn commit 23999.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.