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

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).

To clarify:

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.

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 clauses.

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 | paul@jakma.org | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
The goal of science is to build better mousetraps.  The goal of nature
is to build better mice.

Reply to: