Re: Hacking License
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 18:31, Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Or are you really convinced that these other issues are showstoppers
> and that without handling them in your licence, downstreams will abuse
> their position ? Frankly that doesn't seem particularly likely.
This library implements a distributed file system protocol designed to
replace NFS, SMB, 9P2000 and HTTP/*.
I'm SURE that, without proper handling of these issues in the license,
downstreams will abuse their position just like they do with SaaSS.
If I have to choose between
- the ability of corporations to use my code in larger products
_without_reading_the_license_
- the ability of all people to study, modify and self-host the
applications they use through my distributed system
I have no doubt. I choose the second.
As a Debian user since Potato, I simply hope to give back a little by
tweaking the license text so that it clearly enable Debian to
distribute this Free Software.
> Anyway, I agree very strongly with Ben Finney's criticisms of your
> approach. I don't think engaging with the detail of your licence text
> is a good use of Debian's time. Nor is this mailing list a good
> drafting review panel anyway.
The point of this thread was not to review drafts but to address
compatibility issues with Debian.
Indeed I tried my best to address all concerns emerged so far,
including Xavier's, Thorsten's and David's ones, in the last version I
just published at http://www.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt
This because I read in the Debian's web site that this is the proper
place to discuss licensing issues for prospective packages.
> I recommend to my fellow Debian Developers that they do not try to
> introduce into Debian a package with this licence. In particular,
> I would recommend to my fellow DDs not to sponsor such a package.
> That will save ftpmaster the bother of reviewing this licence.
I guess this is a political recommendation with the weight of an order.
Is there something I can do about it?
If the problem is not in the text of the license, how can I fix it?
> Sorry,
> Ian.
No problem.
In no way I intended to abuse this mailing list.
And I'm sorry if you felt abused somehow.
However, if you express the consensus in Debian, I suggest to fix the
texts at https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ and at
https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq so that it more clearly
express the intents, boundaries and goals of this mailing list.
Giacomo
Reply to: