Off Topic
Report problems with the forum itself, or any thing else not specific to Tixati
<<  Back To Forum

Open Source?

by hego555 on 2015/02/12 02:54:21 AM    
Is Tixati not open source?

If not, why not!?
by John on 2015/02/19 04:43:24 PM    
Tixati is probably closed source in order to protect itself and its users from spying and unwanted activity, including fake versions, backdoors and imitations.
by Guest on 2015/04/20 04:09:10 PM    
I'm sorry to say, but your answer is FUD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt).  GPG is open source and Free Software, it is a standard for personal security and privacy protection, I could mention Linux as another widely known piece of sensible software that is both Open Source and Free Software.

It seems that this software is closed source because the author decided that the open source model is not interest of him.

Kudos to the Author for releasing it to the public (I personally love it) as a Free as in Beer Software.
by Guest on 2015/06/16 09:42:07 AM    
oh, again...

if you want source, look for Software license in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_clients#General
or take "aria2c" source

but here is hint: tixati is best and others are crap.

i respect authors' right to keep it closed source.
by Guest on 2015/11/09 01:25:28 PM    
Open source is a sword with two blade. It can be harmful (finding exploits in code) or it can be useful (creating more secure software like every cryptography software out there.)

Anyway, Tixati is in good hands.
I think developer is a great person. The amount of features in software makes it unique. It's like he/she knows network, programming, P2P, Security, ... from inside out.
A truly anonymous expert.

GOD BLESS HIM/HER
by Guest on 2015/11/10 04:24:03 AM    
Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

by Richard Stallman

When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”

These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.

Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the free GNU/Linux operating system. Most of these users, however, have never heard of the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free software community, because nowadays this system and community are more often spoken of as “open source”, attributing them to a different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.

The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' freedom since 1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems that deny freedom to their users. During the 1980s, we developed most of the essential components of the system and designed the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) to release them under—a license designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a program.

Not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the goals of the free software movement. In 1998, a part of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in the name of “open source.” The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the free software movement.

Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association.

The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a typical example.

For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software.

“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of “free software.”

We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters.

Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source

In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing free software would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.

Second, and more important in practice, many products containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users from installing different executables; only one privileged company can make executables that can run in the device or can access its full capabilities. We call these devices “tyrants”, and the practice is called “tivoization” after the product (Tivo) where we first saw it. Even if the executable is made from free source code, the users cannot run modified versions of it, so the executable is nonfree.

The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source code. Thus, these unmodifiable executables, when made from source code such as Linux that is open source and free, are open source but not free. Many Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux.

more at: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
by Mogs on 2016/08/07 10:43:30 AM    
That is a lovely piece of Stallman copy pasta, but unfortunately it seems to entirely miss the point.

Tixati as it stands is neither Free (as in free speech defined above), or Open Source. I'm glad many on the forum are happy to trust the author, it's a good sign. But it also seems a reasonable question to ask why it remains "Free" only as Free Beer. People are perhaps understandably a little suspicious when it comes to torrenting, and compiling from source would remove that suspicion (justified or not).

So far I've never seen an answer to the open source Tixati question from the author, or an explanation that seems reasonable beyond "I don't care, thank you to the author".
by Guest on 2016/09/27 04:47:04 PM    
You want to inspect a torrent client, check out libtorrent.
The fact that Tixati is able to implement itself as a stable unique evolving client... without any confusion or infiltration of the proprietary chat and network subsystem would be moot when others can just copy- and possibly sabotage that culture.

If you don't trust the author go elsewhere. uTorrent was a great client. For torrents. Then Bittorrent, Inc. bought it. Now Bittorrent has no less than 6 versions of their client which all do the same thing with different GUI wrapper (See latest spinoff Resilio). While I don't advocate using old versions of software on principle, I can understand where users would have a difficult time with Tixati if for instance it DID somehow get a 'build from source' option... I personally would still use the last version from the original author/dev team.
It's obvious they care about the client and don't just "include everything but the kitchen sink"...
Reasons are like opinions... which are like anuses (all humans have them and its likely they smell).
by Mohadib on 2016/10/03 06:40:22 PM    
Hi
Open source is not the paradise, more like said before me, an open source means that the software code (source) program is fully supplied, great for finding bugs or security flaws, but finding these flaws safeties are not necessarily provided, and can be sold or used for purposes of monitoring or other.
dev is to choose, it is still their baby.
From france with love.
Mohadib
by sxiii on 2016/10/15 07:31:14 PM    
I would say this: my vote goes for open source. A user of free culture with more than 10 years of experience. I want to move this topic to a more productive. Let's stop discussing and make a small "+1" voting. Whoever want the Tixati to become open, may post their +1 here. Author will see how much people is interested in the topic. It's, of course, author's baby, but at least opening 90% of the client which implements the most important parts of the torrent stack itself I would see as a good idea. In the future, this piece of software will gain more. If the author leave the project closed, it might die someday, and/or he would anyway open the source, but AFTER the moment anyone would care of. For instance, take a look at Vivaldi web browser - it is closed, but it publishes source code on the web, hope you get the idea. Thanks! Let's +1
by Guest on 2016/10/20 01:16:48 AM    
This program has been my favorite torrenting program so far, nothing else matches its feature-set or even comes close. The only thing it lacks is the quality of being open-source, which is why I can't use it on any of my more trusted machines. Please open-source Tixati so that I can not have these fears, and so that I can tell all my friends that my torrenting program is better than theirs.
by Guest on 2016/11/20 11:15:06 AM    
Here's why putting the source out there is a good idea (even if it's not GPL/BSD/MIT licensed):

A) It allows code auditing, which is a minor point.

B) It allows (physically) for in-house modification (even if the license says that's a no-no, piss on the license I have the bits!).

For B specifically, the modification I would simply implement, instead of trolling the developer for it, is differing the DHT port from the torrenting port.  To run Tixati securely (strictly torrents, no channels) over Tor or some other TCP-only SOCKS/HTTP proxy, one currently must disable DHT and thus rely only on TCP-capable trackers.  That's a significant drop in access to the pool of peers in a given torrent, as most trackers are UDP and many torrents are tracker-less.  Actually, now that it's been brought to the developer's attention, it would be unacceptable to not provide 1) a checkbox under DHT for "use different port in range:" and 2) provide two number entry boxes which would be the Min and Max port numbers that will be assigned to DHT, and (bonus) 3) provide a drop-down box which lists time delay between DHT port and identity changes, with minimum value no larger than 5 minutes.
by Guest on 2016/12/15 10:44:55 PM    
I also have to +1 this. Tixati is fantastic software and I'm not sure why it can't be FOSS. Of course, I respect the developer's decision.

Perhaps they are worried that Tixati will be forked and control will be lost. I doubt that though. Development is really good on this software, as is the support, forums here etc

Not to mention open sourcing the core could surely lead somebody to work on a cocoa gui for osx.
by Guest on 2016/12/20 05:37:12 PM    
"Open source is a sword with two blade. It can be harmful (finding exploits in code) or it can be useful (creating more secure software like every cryptography software out there.)"

Being open and finding exploits at an accelerated rate is the best way to quickly increase the quality of a codebase. Look at Linux, its open-source nature has contributed to it being one of the largest projects around with some of the highest quality code we've made. You can examine it and find the issues yourself, this is how it's bettered. Being aware of the faults and fixing them, not hiding them and ignoring them(even out of ignorance and inability). You think a few hundred windows developers who just need to get a feature done and don't give a darn about deprecated code, stubs, and such can outclass millions of the most proficient developers worldwide? Especially when they are heavily scrutinized by everyone instead of hiding their disgusting malpractices behind closed doors.

Quality will increase, people will still buy your software, except now they're free to use it as they see fit, which is nice given they paid for it and should have that right. Opening the source doesn't mean it's immediately plagiarized or fully understood and usurped. It adds to an ecosystem that is capable of outgrowing the individual in quality and functionality.

More often than not, well-written open-source software survives like an apex predator. Closed source serves for nothing more than to try to cheat the evolutionary system to outlasts its time. It helps it survive longer than natural selection would normally determine its fitness inadequate. In this case, it's people identifying it to be useful and the best of other software they used, so that software survives. If it were open-source, it would only serve to spawn a better piece, until then it would survive. If it doesn't it's because it shouldn't, because it can be improved.

It's destructive to the whole system, including yourself, to hide such intellectual information. You "made" the program, but really you discovered a set of natural laws which work to produce it. When you don't share this knowledge, you reduce the mutually symbiotic relationships available for everyone to improve and benefit. In the end, you lose the ability to improve your own knowledge effectively.

This is why it should matter to you, not because you're being altruistic; because you're seeking the most effective learning experience. We shouldn't revel in our past, we should create and improve, if we're capable and worth living, then we will make more and more products of value. That could never be stolen from you unless you give up personal expansion. It's moot to even talk about because there are already many examples of FOSS software that have shown it's an effective structure.

Selfishness is okay, but the destruction of you and the environment you depend on out of greed is mathematically inefficient. I'd go so far as to say it's immoral because it's fighting natural tendency towards the most effective machine.

Protip: This is true for FOSS because it's true for us as individuals.
by Guest on 2016/12/27 10:48:39 AM    
my guess as to why tixati isn't open source is it probably utilises a proprietary C++ library written by the tixati developer which is used in his or her own software projects, perhaps as a full time job or consulting for other companies. It's a pity really. The library seems to handle cross platform GUI and networking really well. I had a similar experience actually, I wrote a library for interfacing with a piece of hardware but was paid $ to develop it, and the company didn't want that code being open to the public.

Sadly it restrains me using it on my Linux machine which I won't run proprietary software on. For my windows machine though, you're in the trap already, who cares about adding another layer.
by Guest on 2017/06/07 07:58:31 PM    
Still it would be really interesting to know why the author doesn't want to OS this. And not the guesses by other ppl.
I've also started doing software non opensource at first, but over time I've grown to see the bright sides of doing so and loosing the angst that sb could / would steal it what o'ever.




This web site is powered by Super Simple Server