Re: Hacking License
Le 04/12/2018 à 10:07, Giacomo Tesio a écrit :
> Il December 4, 2018 6:04:59 AM UTC, Ben Finney <email@example.com> ha scritto:
>> If you want to release a work of software compatible with Debian, please
>> do everyone – yourself included – a huge favour and choose an existing,
>> 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 compatibility issues between the Hacking License
> and the DFSG in the hope to address them before the widespread
> adoption of the software it cover and the license.
> While the copyright attribution embedded in the Hacking License is
> designed to make updates to the license possible, I cannot be sure
> that the changes that Debian would require would be compatible with
> the rights granted to the users after the release, actually making the
> software incompatible with Debian (the upstream copyright attribution
> is terminated, like other grants, on violation of users rights).
> I appreciate the feedbacks shared so far by Debian Legal volunteers,
> and integrated them in the new version of the license to this aim.
> If no further incompatibility exists between the Hacking License and
> the DFSG, I will not annoy the list anymore.
> If, on the other hand, no new copyleft license is allowed to enter
> 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 tentacle of evil test (not found in wiki, why ?):
"Imagine that the author is hired by a large evil corporation and,
now in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users of the
program: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using the
program, to expose them to legal liability, to make the program non-
free, to discover their secrets, etc. The same can happen to a
corporation bought out by a larger corporation bent on destroying
free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil
empire. To be free, the license cannot allow even the author to take
away the required freedoms."
> Same if this is a problem of license authorship (because I'm neither a
> lawyer nor a committee) or affiliation.
> Ultimately, if "strongly discouraged" actually means "forbidden" I
> just need to know it.
>> However, you are strongly seeking feedback not on the work of software,
>> but on your new license text.
> No, let's be clear on this: I **welcome** all feedbacks about the
> license's text, but here I'm **seeking** just for
> I didn't release the software yet because it's innovative by itself
> and I need an appropriate license to more effectively protect the
> users' freedom in a strongly distributed computing platform.