Re: Hacking License

[Paul Jakma <paul@jakma.org>]

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.

regards,
--
Paul Jakma | paul@jakma.org | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Fortune:
The goal of science is to build better mousetraps.  The goal of nature
is to build better mice.