Re: Hacking License
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Paul Jakma wrote:
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).
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
The abusive cases are exploiting grey lines in the /current/ copyleft
licences. We can move the grey lines so those cases are much further
from the grey lines, by making public source distribution a requirement,
upon distribution - modulo "desert island" and "dissident" escape
I want to have a copyleft licence available that does that, for next
time I want to distribute code under copyleft terms.
The Hacking licence proposed is intriguing, but doesn't quite do that
for me (along with some other issues), as it stands, AFAICT.
Paul Jakma | email@example.com | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
The goal of science is to build better mousetraps. The goal of nature
is to build better mice.