Re: Hacking License
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 23:30, Eloi <entfe001@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> El 11/12/18 a les 9:53, Giacomo Tesio ha escrit:
> > 2. Sencha releases as GPLv3 only the first major version and the first
> > minor version of a new release, and only release as proprietary the
> > code the successive minor versions (that can largerly extend the
> > widget available).
>
> This is, as you stated, what could happen if the original work was
> licensed under the GPLv3. However, if we're talking about a derived
> work, then the proprietary selling of this extended package is already a
> violation of the GPL. The fact that, with your license, this would too
> end in a violation is moot: your "new" protection already exists.
Yes but not exactly in the same way.
If a company violates the GPL, his right to distribute the Derived
Work ends, but the copyright on the Derived Work is still under its
full control.
Thus a third party could not take the (let's suppose) leaked code from
the Derived Work and merge the interesting parts upstream.
If a company violates the Hacking License, the upstream copyright
holders could, since they have received "all permissions and patent
licenses granted to the Users of the Hack, and all rights, title and
interests in any Copyright the Hackers have in the Hack to the extent
permitted by Law."
> What I said is where "public domain" is not a valid status for a work is
> because some author rights cannot be waived. One of them, the transfer
> of authorship.
The non-transferable rights granted to authors under a jurisdictions
are excluded from the copyright assignment (see the definition of
"Copyright" and the grant 2.3).
> > The non-exclusive copyright assignment doesn't waive any right, just shares the transferable ones with upstream copyright holders "to the extent permitted by law" and under the license conditions (if the upstream copyright holders violate such conditions they lose such rights).
>
> And what makes your license different from the GPL in that point?
Grant 2.3:
If the Hack is a Derived Work, the Hackers grant to the Copyright holders
of the Inspiring Hacks all permissions and patent licenses granted to the
Users of the Hack, and all rights, title and interests in any Copyright
the Hackers have in the Hack to the extent permitted by Law.
Hackers don't waive their Copyright, but share it upstream.
This non-exclusive copyright assignment is one of the pillars of this
License that make it stronger than the others existing copyleft.
> If you
> make modifications subject to copyright law, you retain the full
> copyright while also having your changes subject to the GPL. From the
> modifier's point of view, the GPL protects you against downstream
> picking up your changes and privately licensing them (so both upstream
> *and* you can sue) while copyright law protects you against upstream
> doing the same (because *you* are the copyright holder of your
> modifications).
The Hacking License incentivate modifiers to fulfill the license
because if they try to, say, impose additional constraints or
restrictions to the Users, the Users are in turn incentivated to take
on their business model with the support of the upstream developers.
> However, on the broader issue I
> understand that Debian is not only obliged, by manifesto, to have only
> free software on main, but also to make sure that the resulting combined
> work is also distributable: just think about the infamous "OpenSSL
> exception". That fact that your license may be considered free software
> is a requirement, but by itself is not enough: OpenSSL is free software,
> a program which uses OpenSSL may be free software by itself, but the
> combined work may not without the exception clause.
I don't think that the problem is just for Debian here: without the
exception clause, any distribution would face the same issue because
the problem is in the licensing of the Derived Work, as the software
that depends on OpenSSL would be licensed under an incompatible
license.
However you are right on this point: AFAIK you cannot mix in the same
program code under the Hacking License and code under a GNU copyleft.
Fortunately this doesn't make all works based on the Hacking License
non-distributable, just those that would require the violation of one
or more of the licenses of the works they derive.
In the case of a library that depends on few POSIX system calls, this
compatibility issue do not arise.
Giacomo
Reply to: