Re: Hacking License
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
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
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.