[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Hacking License

Le 06/12/2018 à 10:29, Giacomo Tesio a écrit :
> Il giorno gio 6 dic 2018 alle ore 02:12 Ben Finney
> <bignose@debian.org> ha scritto:
>> Giacomo, I again ask you: please don't impose on the free software
>> community the burden of yet another roll-your-own license text.
> Ben, I'm a hacker. And I'm Italian.
> To me Freedom will NEVER mean permission to pick a product off the shelf.


it seems to be a little conflict between what you want to do and the
spirit of DFSG:
 - DFSG have been chosen in the spirit: using debian/main, you are free
   to do anything you want without having to look at each package (even
   if you sell hardware embedding it,...), but if you use non-free
   branch, you have to check each license to be sure you are granted to
   use this software
 - it seems you want to restrict this for your package usage, then
   non-free is the good branch to publish it

>> We already have a minefield of difficult-to-predict interacting clauses
>> just with the *existing* license conditions that are well known.
> Yet how many strong copyleft we have?
> How many are really designed to maximise user freedom?
> How many are designed with a distributed computing environment in mind?
>> Adding yet another set of conditions massively multiplies the potential
>> set of combinations, making it that much harder to determine whether a
>> given work is free software. Please realise that this is *not* a benefit
>> 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 this direction.

This is clearly in conflict with DFSG. "non-free" branch isn't there to
blame projects but just to explain to users that they have to check
license before using it.

>>> Does this license match the DFSG?
> [...]
> I really understand your concerns.
> I carefully ponder your objections.
> And I'm eager to know which lines makes the Hacking License look
> non-free to your eyes: I will try to remove every ambiguity.
> But I'm not asking permission.
> The Hacking License exists as a response to the bad moves I see around
> (and ultimately against) free software.
> Since I can't trust anymore many existing actors, I'm hacking a solution myself.
>> --
>>  \       “To have the choice between proprietary software packages, is |
>>   `\      being able to choose your master. Freedom means not having a |
>> _o__)                        master.” —Richard M. Stallman, 2007-05-16 |
> To have the choice between "blessed free software licenses" is
> being able to choose your master... and your users' master.
> I have no master.

This is your choice and you are in your right.

Thanks for contributing to free software.


Reply to: