Re: Hacking License
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 17:29, Ian Jackson
> Xavier writes ("Re: Hacking License"):
> > No Debian accepts any license that are DFSG compliant (DFSG is just a
> > guidelines). You may use the 3 tests to understand what may be wrong :
> These tests are not official. AFAIAA they do not form part of the
> approval process used by the Debian ftpmasters when they make
> decisions on the acceptability of some work for Debian.
> Xavier, please do not misrepresent the situation.
To be honest, I had totally understood that Xavier was NOT suggesting
these texts to be official part of the approval process.
They are, as clearly stated everywhere, just imperfect expressions of
the values of Debian.
I was aware of this before posting here, but Xavier didn't cause any
confusion on this regard.
> I agree that inventing a new licence is a bad idea.
I would agree too, if there were alternatives available.
> I think Giacomo
> would be well served by adopting AGPLv3+ and nominating himself as
> licence steward.
Thanks for your suggestion.
Unfortunately AGPLv3 doesn't cover many of the issues I try to address
with the Hacking License.
Also, changing the license steward on an AGPLv3+ could cause serious
confusion to users in the long term.
Thanks to you!