Re: Hacking License
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, right now I can't grasp your insight about the text of
the License (I published a further update at
http://www.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt that receipt an interesting
issues that has been pointed out by adding a new condition 3.6, but I
didn't share it here because I don't really want to annoy people who
If you can help me understand the problems you see, we could try to
design a new test that make them evident together.
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 12:14, Giacomo Tesio <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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:
> Hi Xavier,
> 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
> know it.
> 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.
> How so?
> 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
> lesser extent.
> 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).
> That's it.
> 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
> reform it.
> 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.