[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Hacking License

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Giacomo Tesio wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 13:06, Paul Jakma <paul@jakma.org> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Giacomo Tesio wrote:

Unless there is some really compelling reason the modifier can not make
their changes available (desert island, dissident), why not just require
they make the changes available - given how easy it is to distribute
software these days?

This is not a binary state, either easy to distribute or impossible to. The world is large and the bandwidth you assume is not cheap or easily available to everyone.

That may be true, but there may come a point where a line must be drawn. Either the distributor does have sufficient Internet access to not meet some "desert island" clause, or they do not. Either there is sufficient risk to meet some "dissident" clause, or there is not.

The world may not be binary, but in the event of a dispute sufficient to take the matter to court, a judge will draw that line, according to the context, in terms of the parties involved (not the world). (This is also why it is important to use terms that the legal world prefers and has already reasoned about, rather than inventing your own).

If someone can download copies of software I have made available, and if they are able to distribute their modifications to others using the Internet, then they are going to have a hard-time arguing that they could not also upload the software to, say, either GitHub, or else my instance of gogs with free hosting for modified versions of said software (specifically there to facilitate that licence requirement).

The corporate abusers I have in mind are very clearly not on a desert island, very clearly are active on the Internet, very clearly are fully capable of making their modifications available to all.

That's why the Hacking License give right upstream.
In the moment an abuser abuse the license, all his rights are terminated.

The GPL also terminates. The GPLv2 has very strong termination conditions even.

That's not what happens though, the abuser finds a loophole, to carry out their abuse (not giving back) in a way that can be argued to not violate the licence.

Making available != getting integrated upstream.

This is an oversimplification: by making available a severe zero-day fix that would likely to get lost among the thousands of "newly available" patches of the week, you might set up a blame campaign on the upstream hackers that are "unable to live up to their success".

Free Software is a gift. I want it to remain a gift.
As such it cannot become a burden on those who donate.

I don't see how it could be a burden, if one is openly distributing modified versions of some copylefted work on an ongoing basis, to also be required to upload a copy to any of a number of free open-source source code hosting sites.

AGPLv3 also poses a condition to the execution: beyond the wording, if you make a covered work available across a network (a use) you have to make the sources available to the users. The Hacking License is simpler: as a condition to the all the grants provided, you should make the source available to any User (as defined in the License itself).

The corporate abusers I have in mind would be able to fulfill that condition.

And I'm back to square one, with the same problem I have with the GPL. The Users have a disincentive to pass the source on, through side-contracts.

And I'm in the same position as before with the GPLv2: The question of whether those side-contracts are at odds with the licence, or whether they are orthogonal and wholly separate things, does not have an obvious answer.

Much easier would be a licence where all you had to show was that the software was passed on, and that that act on its own was sufficient to trigger the general source distribution requirement (modulo "desert island", etc., which pretty obviously do not apply to the general corporate abusers).

Same for your grampa. When it stop being a personal hack and you have
to publish the patch somehow?

I don't know. There is some line though, and - if it comes down to it - a judge can draw that line.

Just as the corporate abusers are obviously not on a desert island, these abusive cases generally do not involve people distributing a hack to their granda via SSH access.

The abusive cases are far from the grey lines, so there is little need to worry about /exactly/ where they lie - and ultimately that comes down to a judge.

Despite its evidence, may people cannot see the parallel between writing in Ancient Egypt and information technology today. So they tend to discard issues that will arise when programming will be easy and diffused as it's writing today.

The legal system will find a way of deciding these matters though, where people care enough to bring them to a court.

No, the modifier must make the modifications available only to their Users.

This is open to abuse, as explained. ;)

If you add time into the equation, it should be easy to see.
As time goes on, someone able and interested to spread the
modifications might share them with you.

The case I'm thinking of, we havn't had "Users" spread the side-contract-restricted modifications in a decade+.

So... I disagree. It's empirically untrue, at least within time-scales I care about.

This however is particularly interesting if someone try to use a SaaSS
to make modifications privates.
If you can deduce the changes, you have the rights (including patent
licenses) to introduce them.
And you can transfer such rights to third parties with the Derived Work.

It's kind of useful in that respect, to get a copyright to the modifications themselves (beyond the rights you hold in a derived work anyway).

It doesn't solve my abuse problem though.

Paul Jakma | paul@jakma.org | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
The secret of healthy hitchhiking is to eat junk food.

Reply to: