> In computing, a Trojan horse is any malware that misleads users of its true intent. The term is derived from the Ancient Greek story of the deceptive Trojan Horse that led to the fall of the city of Troy.
> Trojans generally spread by some form of social engineering; for example, where a user is duped into executing an email attachment disguised to appear not suspicious (e.g., a routine form to be filled in), or by clicking on some fake advertisement on social media or anywhere else.
Marak disguised his malicious DoS attack as previously released useful software. I am completely baffled why people are defending his actions, at all. He could have easily just pulled down his repo, that would have been totally within his rights. Releasing malicious software under the guise of something else is not.
And the fact that people are quoting the license of "no implied warranty" is irrelevant. The law does not look kindly on those that act with malicious intent, regardless of what a license agreement says. For example, if he changed the repo to instead encrypt your hard drive, I guarantee he'd be going to jail. While thankful this was just a DoS attack and not something more serious, it was attack all the same.
Wikipedia doesn't define industry terms, especially in one-off throwaway lines without citations.
The Jargon File clearly defines a Trojan as something that (1) breaks your security and (2) is disguised as something benign.
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/Trojan-horse.html
Unless you can show Marak Squires breached these folks security systems, it simply is not a Trojan.
(As a separate point, a claim that something distributed as source code is "disguised" simply cannot be in good faith.)
By claiming it is a Trojan, you are accusing Marak Squires of a potential felony by accessing a computer system without authorization. Making serious accusations like that should require some evidence. I don't see any.
Link to even one report of Marak getting inside someone else's system.