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

Re: Hacking License

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? Is a one man company an organization or a user?
What are activities?

According to your definitions:
 "Hacker" refers to any Copyright holder of the Hack.
 "Copyright" means copyright-like laws that apply to other literary works.

As a conclusion: "Hacker" refers to any copyright-like law holder of the Hack. This does not make sense.

Further: "Human" is every live being with humans among its genetic ancestors. Is a trout a human? Yes, because a trout is a live being that has other trouts among its genetic ancestors.
What is the trout readable form of the software?

"know-how required to perform any of the activities" is not specific enough. What exactly do I have to give the user?

These are only the verbal shortcomings that came to my mind after reading your text.

Organizations get less grants, this is clearly against DFSG #6. Even Organizations need to modify the code.

Currently I can sell Debian on CDs. According to 3.4, if software under the HACK license is in Debian I am not allowed to do this anymore. This is against DFSG #9.

This license text is so vague that its consequences for Debian users are not clear. So if it were up to me, I would not accept software under this license to be part of Debian. I would even struggle with me to accept it for the non-free part.

Sorry, Debian is open for new licenses all the time, but I am afraid the HACK license needs a fair amount of rework.


Reply to: