Re: Hacking License
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 11:07, Xavier <email@example.com> wrote:
> Le 06/12/2018 à 10:29, Giacomo Tesio a écrit :
> > Il giorno gio 6 dic 2018 alle ore 02:12 Ben Finney
> > <firstname.lastname@example.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:
if it was not clear, the product I was talking about was the license,
not the software
As Cicero said befor me and RMS: «Libertas (...) non in eo est ut
iusto utamur domino, sed ut nullo.»
> - 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
This is an interesting interpretation, but in contraddiction with the
presence of AGPLv3 software in the free branch.
In general, you cannot "do anything you want" with a software under copyleft.
> - it seems you want to restrict this for your package usage, then
> non-free is the good branch to publish it
There must be a language barrirer at work here: I'm not sure about
what I would want to restrict.
Could give an example? I'm really confused by your words.
Again, if the set of licenses allowed for software in Debian free
branch is extablished and no new copyleft can enter it, I just need to
If not, if a new package distributed under a new copyleft license can
be compatible with the Debian values, it should be distributed in the
free branch, shoudn't it?
So the point is wherther such copyleft license is compatible or can be
made compatible with Debian definition of Free Software (which is what
I'm actually asking here), or 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 tell me something like: "Statement X.Y could be interpreted in
a way incompatible with our values because of a, b and c" I would be
happy to clarify or fix it.
As I tried to do with many passages that have been pointed out
publicily or privately.
> > 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.
This is a honest question, not a rethorical one.
Also, note that it is just a long term goal only expressed in the
Preamble: turning users to hackers is not a requirement, a condition,
a legal effect or something, it's just the combined social effect of a
strong copyleft applyied to software that is designed to be simple and
easy to study and modify. Every GNU license does the same, just to a
The Hacking License does NOT limit the Users' freedoms to empower the
Hackers' ones: it empowers both and try to smooth as much as possible
the transition between the two states.
The fact is that I don't think that Knowledge is Power, but that
Ignorance is Weakness: the more Users learn, the more Free they are.
The Hacking License turns them to hackers in the sense that it
maximise the knowledge they can legally access and challenge with new
experients (aka study and modify).
How this is 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.
I'm confused from such statement.
I always check if the software I install from Debian free is released
under AGPLv3 or not.
Are them all in the non-free branch? I've never noticed it.
> >>> Does this license match the DFSG?
> This is your choice and you are in your right.
Thanks for acknowledging my right to decide how to license my software.
I appreciate it.
> Thanks for contributing to free software.
You are welcome! :-D
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
I think this match very well the Debian values.
If the Hacking License doesn't clearly express this goal, I'm happy to
But I would need more clear objections to the problematic points of the text.
"It's all wrong" doesn't work well here because it clearly passes all
tests and clearly matches the letter of the DFSG.
That's why I'm annoying you here: to understand which passage you find
in contrast with the _values_ of Debian.