will be shipped and other will have contributed to
it, it might become impossible to fix any issue in the Hacking License that
make it incompatible with Debian.
That's why I annoyed you here: to identify issues in the text of the license to
make it clearly compatible with Debian values and needs.
Giacomo Tesio writes:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 17:22, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> > Perhaps you don't care about encouraging, into contributing to your
> > project, people who are short of time and who are picky about what
> > they spend time evaluating.
>
> Well, actually this is true.
> I'm not
On December 18, 2018 5:49:40 PM UTC, Ian Jackson
wrote:
>Giacomo Tesio writes ("Re: Hacking License"):
>> Laziness is blind cost minimization.
>>
>> [150-odd lines more text deleted]
>
>/me blindly minimises costs:
>
>tl;dr
>
Fun fact: if you are
Giacomo Tesio writes ("Re: Hacking License"):
> Laziness is blind cost minimization.
>
> [150-odd lines more text deleted]
/me blindly minimises costs:
tl;dr
I think this closes the converation for me. I've made my pitch, and
you disagree.
Ian.
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 17:22, Ian Jackson
wrote:
>
> Giacomo Tesio writes ("Re: Hacking License"):
> > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 10:49, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > > When
> > > faced with a non-standard license with unclear terms and no community
> &g
Giacomo Tesio writes ("Re: Hacking License"):
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 10:49, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > When
> > faced with a non-standard license with unclear terms and no community
> > consensus on its consequences, it's quite a rational response to think "
aware of
the practical and political issues you are talking about.
To be honest, I think the Hacking License could be a way out of some
of these issues, but... you will think I'm biased :-D
> Or, in other words, the test is "Is this license a new one, written by
> one random guy with
ing to loose
> - I cannot do much harm if I fail
> - I can do a lot of good if I succeed
>
> But on the specific matter of the Hacking License, I obviously welcome
> help and suggestions.
There is a sentence that common Internet wisdom considers an "African
proverb"[1]:
&qu
El 12/12/18 a les 16:06, Ian Jackson ha escrit:
> As for the first link, it says only
> | Copyright, licensing and patent issues
> | Discussions about legality issues such as copyrights, patents etc.
>
> which IMO accurately describes the scope of the list within Debian.
IIRC there was a
El 11/12/18 a les 23:46, Paul Jakma ha escrit:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Eloi Notario wrote:
>
>> Furthermore, these patches will be protected by the GPLv3 and even if
>> publicly available Sencha will be unable to sell them,
>
> Probably you know this, and you meant "sell them exclusively or
>
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:06, Ian Jackson
wrote:
>
> Giacomo Tesio writes ("Re: Hacking License"):
> > If the problem is not in the text of the license, how can I fix it?
>
> In the short term, you can add a clear compatibility clause that
> allows relicensing a
nse helps to achieve
> them. I suspect it actually doesn't.
Let me say that I seriously consider your concerns and all other
people's suggestions.
I carefully considered many of the points you raise before starting to
draft the Hacking License.
Ultimately, I wasn't able to find a better wa
Giacomo Tesio writes ("Re: Hacking License"):
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 18:31, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> > I recommend to my fellow Debian Developers that they do not try to
> > introduce into Debian a package with this licence. In particular,
> > I would recomme
n Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 00:55:47 +0100, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> If a company violates the Hacking License, the upstream copyright
> holders could, since they have received "all permissions and patent
> licenses granted to the Users of the Hack, and all rights, title and
> interest
d Work is still under its
full control.
Thus a third party could not take the (let's suppose) leaked code from
the Derived Work and merge the interesting parts upstream.
If a company violates the Hacking License, the upstream copyright
holders could, since they have received "all permission
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Paul Jakma wrote:
Much easier would be a licence where all you had to show was that the
software was passed on, and that that act on its own was sufficient to
trigger the general source distribution requirement (modulo "desert island",
etc., which pretty obviously do not
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Eloi Notario wrote:
Furthermore, these patches will be protected by the GPLv3 and even if
publicly available Sencha will be unable to sell them,
Probably you know this, and you meant "sell them exclusively or
somesuch", but just to note:
Nothing in the GPL prevents one
El 11/12/18 a les 22:33, Giacomo ha escrit:
> On December 11, 2018 7:54:16 PM UTC, Eloi Notario wrote:
>> El 11/12/18 a les 9:53, Giacomo Tesio ha escrit:
>>> [...]
>>> 2. If ExtJs was a Derived Work of a software release under the
>> Hacking
>>> Licen
On December 11, 2018 7:54:16 PM UTC, Eloi Notario wrote:
>El 11/12/18 a les 9:53, Giacomo Tesio ha escrit:
>> [...]
>> 2. If ExtJs was a Derived Work of a software release under the
>Hacking
>> License, Sencha would have no right to keep any version proprietary.
>
El 11/12/18 a les 9:53, Giacomo Tesio ha escrit:
> [...]
> 2. If ExtJs was a Derived Work of a software release under the Hacking
> License, Sencha would have no right to keep any version proprietary.
Being Sencha the copyright owner (noting for clarity as I cut that from
the quote), I
ons available to all.
That's why the Hacking License give right upstream.
In the moment an abuser abuse the license, all his rights are terminated.
The GPL also terminates. The GPLv2 has very strong termination
conditions even.
That's not what happens though, the abuser finds a loophole, to ca
gt; The more options are given for not distributing modifications widely,
> the more opportunity there is for abusers to find loop-holes.
That's why the Hacking License give right upstream.
In the moment an abuser abuse the license, all his rights are terminated.
But the right obtained by others sti
obligation to make the modifications public.
In both case, strictly applied, such rule would create weird practical
issues to free software.
I think you're objections were not with what I had imagined. ;)
That's why the Hacking License assigns copyright and patent license
upstream but without turnin
ment
- it would disincentive hack for personal purpose for the burden to
prepare a 3rd party readable patch
In both case, strictly applied, such rule would create weird practical
issues to free software.
That's why the Hacking License assigns copyright and patent license
upstream but without turning ups
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Paul Wise wrote:
If you are talking about grsecurity,
Had more personally significant cases in mind, not GrSec per se, but
GrSecurity is an example, on the contract side.
That said, wrt "abusive corporates", I'd put GrSec more on the /victim/
side, and I have some
tract from 2017 was on
> their website, is now on archive.org but the current version is not
> public:
If Linux was licensed under the Hacking License, the Grsecurity rights
to modify it would be terminated by the introduction of the Stable
Patch Access Agreement.
However, Linus and all the
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:45 AM Paul Jakma wrote:
> There is an issue with the GPL style copyleft of abuse by corporates. In
> particular, abusing the ability to discharge source distribution
> privately, and then using various forms of side-contracts to
> (indirectly) "discourage" recipients
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 18:31, Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Or are you really convinced that these other issues are showstoppers
> and that without handling them in your licence, downstreams will abuse
> their position ? Frankly that doesn't seem particularly likely.
This library implements a
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
Or are you really convinced that these other issues are showstoppers
and that without handling them in your licence, downstreams will abuse
their position ? Frankly that doesn't seem particularly likely.
Without denigrating what you're saying on
Giacomo Tesio writes ("Re: Hacking License"):
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 17:29, Ian Jackson
> > I think Giacomo would be well served by adopting AGPLv3+ and
> > nominating himself as licence steward.
>
> Thanks for your suggestion.
> Unfortunately AGPLv3 does
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 17:29, Ian Jackson
wrote:
>
> Xavier writes ("Re: Hacking License"):
> > No Debian accepts any license that are DFSG compliant (DFSG is just a
> > guidelines). You may use the 3 tests to understand what may be wrong :
>
> These tests
Xavier writes ("Re: Hacking License"):
> No Debian accepts any license that are DFSG compliant (DFSG is just a
> guidelines). You may use the 3 tests to understand what may be wrong :
These tests are not official. AFAIAA they do not form part of the
approval process used by the D
ify the software.
To this goal the license is designed to:
- maximize the number of forks of the covered works
- maximize the free software available (not necessarily under the Hacking
License, see 3.3)
> What makes this different from other copyleft licenses?
>Do you *really *need your own lic
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 23:02 Giacomo wrote:
[...]
> So basically that definition is there to prevent discrimination against
> any group or minority or even against people affected by genetic issues
> and so on.
>
Why not just say 'people'?
To my mind the biggest problem with this license is
Il December 7, 2018 7:03:47 PM UTC, Thorsten Alteholz ha
scritto:
>Hi Giacomo,
Hi Thorsten, thanks for pointing out these issues.
>On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>> If you can help me understand the problems you see, we could try to
>> design a new test that make them evident
Hi Giacomo,
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
If you can help me understand the problems you see, we could try to
design a new test that make them evident together.
some terms are ambiguous and need to be defined. For example how do
you want to use "shall"?
What is an organization?
Perhaps I've got the problem.
Maybe we lack a forth clear-cut test expressing your insight that can
exclude the Hacking License as a free license?
I would be glad to help designing such test even if it would turn out
that there's no way to reform the Hacking License to pass it.
Unfortunately
ask: this does mean in any way that the Hacking License limits in
> any way the possibility to sell copies of the software or to otherwise get
> economical profit by it's distribution or execution (given the stated
> conditions are met).d
s/this does mean/this does NOT mean/
Sorry.
Giacomo
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 12:14, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> My Free Software is a gift and I want it to stay free for everybody
> and to keep generating more gifts for everybody recursively and
> unbound.
Before you ask: this does mean in any way that the Hacking License
limits i
not.
Really, I'm talking about values, not letter.
I'm NOT looking for loopholes in the DFSG or something, I'm just
trying to ensure the Hacking License is clearly compatible with the
spirit of Debian (as I think it is).
I'm more than happy to remove every ambiguity if you can point me them.
If you tel
efit
>> to the community.
>
> This is a issue of existing international copyright regulation.
> If you want to reform it, I'm totally with you.
> No software should be allowed to be proprietary or secret.
>
> By turning users to hackers, the Hacking License is a step into t
s is a issue of existing international copyright regulation.
If you want to reform it, I'm totally with you.
No software should be allowed to be proprietary or secret.
By turning users to hackers, the Hacking License is a step into this direction.
> > Does this license match the DFSG?
>
> I
Giacomo Tesio writes:
> thanks to the public and private advices that I received on the last
> version, I further improved the Hacking License.
Giacomo, I again ask you: please don't impose on the free software
community the burden of yet another roll-your-own license text.
We alread
Hi,
thanks to the public and private advices that I received on the last
version, I further improved the Hacking License.
In particular:
1. clarified the permission granted to organizations (on behalf of
their members)
2. removed the name change requirement
3. extended the permissions and patent
Il giorno mar 4 dic 2018 alle ore 12:07 Xavier ha scritto:
>
> Le 04/12/2018 à 11:17, Giacomo Tesio a écrit :
> >
> > To be honest, to my untrained eye the tentacle of evil test might be a
> > case against GNU License common use of "or (at your option) any later
> > version." because if a project
gt;>> Debian, I'm fine with it, but I think this should be clearly stated
>>> somewhere in the social contract.
>>
>> No Debian accepts any license that are DFSG compliant (DFSG is just a
>> guidelines). You may use the 3 tests to understand what may be wrong :
>> *
the social contract.
>
> No Debian accepts any license that are DFSG compliant (DFSG is just a
> guidelines). You may use the 3 tests to understand what may be wrong :
> * https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest
The Hacking License only requires to distribute sources of Derived
Works t
Hi Andrej thanks for your objections.
Il giorno mar 4 dic 2018 alle ore 09:58 Andrej Shadura
ha scritto:
> > In particular, I have
> > 1) removed requirement to change the logo (see [1] from Francesco Poli).
> >That requirements was not there to protect the brand of the authors but
> >to
; well-understood, known-by-copyright-experts-to-be-effective free
>> license already used for many existing software works.
>
> Hi Ben thanks for your advice. I know you mean well.
>
>
> It's not my intention to abuse the debian-legal mailing list, I was
> really looking for
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 01:34, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> Hi, I've just published a new version of the Hacking License that
> receipts some of the objections proposed on debian-legal and on
> copyleft-next.
>
> In particular, I have
> 1) removed requirement to change the logo (s
already used for many existing software works.
Hi Ben thanks for your advice. I know you mean well.
It's not my intention to abuse the debian-legal mailing list, I was
really looking for compatibility issues between the Hacking License
and the DFSG in the hope to address them before the widespr
Giacomo Tesio writes:
> Hi, I've just published a new version of the Hacking License that
> receipts some of the objections proposed on debian-legal and on
> copyleft-next.
> […]
> I would really appreciate further feedbacks.
Please be aware that this is *not* a forum part
Hi, I've just published a new version of the Hacking License that
receipts some of the objections proposed on debian-legal and on
copyleft-next.
In particular, I have
1) removed requirement to change the logo (see [1] from Francesco Poli).
That requirements was not there to protect the brand
Il giorno sab 1 dic 2018 alle ore 22:28 Giacomo ha scritto:
> >Rather than drafting a license on your own, maybe you would be willing to
> >talk with the copyleft-next community, work with us over there, and perhaps
> >improve copyleft-next in ways you can find it to be good enough for
> >your
Il December 1, 2018 7:02:23 PM UTC, "Bradley M. Kuhn" ha
scritto:
>I'm curious if you'd looked at copyleft-next
Yes, I followed the work of Fontana for a while (actually way before
considering to write the Hacking License).
> and possibly joining its drafting community.
Thi
I'm curious if you'd looked at copyleft-next and possibly joining its
drafting community. Some of your copyleft licensing ideas are interesting;
some of them I think are bad copyleft policy.
Rather than drafting a license on your own, maybe you would be willing to
talk with the copyleft-next
ms to the DFGL and pass the three corner-case tests,
>> but I'd like to know your legal opinions and criticisms, as I'm going
>> to package such library for Debian too.
>
>I don't think that software released under the "Hacking License"
>complies with the Debian
GPL's length.
There would be a lot more to add here, but I've already spent 6 months to write
a license and I can't spend 6 more to write a mail :-)
So I'd really appreciate if you could read it before deciding you don't like it.
Giacomo
>>
>> Hacking License
>>
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 04:28:58 +0100 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Hi, I'm going to distribute a C library I wrote from scratch and with
> no dependencies (except for some POSIX system calls) under a new
> strong copyleft, the Hacking License.
Hello,
thanks for writing a new library and fo
30, 2018, 22:29 Giacomo Tesio Hi, I'm going to distribute a C library I wrote from scratch and with
> no dependencies (except for some POSIX system calls) under a new
> strong copyleft, the Hacking License.
> AFAIK, it conforms to the DFGL and pass the three corner-case tests,
>
Hi, I'm going to distribute a C library I wrote from scratch and with
no dependencies (except for some POSIX system calls) under a new
strong copyleft, the Hacking License.
AFAIK, it conforms to the DFGL and pass the three corner-case tests,
but I'd like to know your legal opinions and criticisms
61 matches
Mail list logo
