Re: Hacking License
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 12:22, Paul Jakma <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
The point is, made available to whom?
To the users? Sure.
In a world where people happily hack their own software, this might
open a can of worms upstream and downstream:
- it would impose a review process (and infrastructure) for patches
that would slow down development
- it would disincentive hack for personal purpose for the burden to
prepare a 3rd party readable patch
In both case, strictly applied, such rule would create weird practical
issues to free software.
That's why the Hacking License assigns copyright and patent license
upstream but without turning upstream copyright holders into Users.
They can also become users, obviously, but they can also just benefit
from the copyright assignment and patent license to reimplement
similar behavior without legal issues.