Re: Hacking License
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Paul Wise wrote:
If you are talking about grsecurity,
Had more personally significant cases in mind, not GrSec per se, but
GrSecurity is an example, on the contract side.
That said, wrt "abusive corporates", I'd put GrSec more on the /victim/
side, and I have some sympathy for them, but that's another discussion.
the contract from 2017 was on their website, is now on archive.org but
the current version is not public:
That looks like the kind of side-agreement that would be good to clearly
make impermissible or impossible to hold people to, while also wanting
to avail of a copyleft licence - to me.
Personally, I want a copyleft for the 'gitlab/github/gogs' era: Source
must be made available, unless you're on a desert island or there is a
credibly physical risk of imprisonment or harm to individuals by
disclosing their identity.
I think that would depend on the protocol used and that many of them
would have room for extensions that could include instructions for
obtaining source code.
If you add an extension, how do you know the other supports that
extension and showing it to the user? How do you show the user
"interacted" with your software? Seems unreliable / risky / unlikely to
achieve the goal, if tested.
Paul Jakma | firstname.lastname@example.org | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Conceit causes more conversation than wit.