Re: Hacking License

[Giacomo Tesio <giacomo@tesio.it>]

Hi Andrej thanks for your objections.

Il giorno mar 4 dic 2018 alle ore 09:58 Andrej Shadura
<andrew@shadura.me> ha scritto:
> > In particular, I have
> > 1) removed requirement to change the logo (see [1] from Francesco Poli).
> >    That requirements was not there to protect the brand of the authors but
> >    to protect the users from being fooled to use a modified version
> >    instead of the original;
>
> That still effectively forbids your software from being packaged.

Mind to elaborate why?
A package might help the user to interactively replace the file, use
Debian's "alternatives" (or equivalent) or simply create a symbolic
link.

Maybe I'm misreading DFSG 4?

> > 2) left requirement to change the name, because the definition of "use"
> >    already allows the users to store a Derived Work in place of the Hack;
>
> So if I want to patch a security vulnerability, I have to bikeshed a
> name? Please no.

This is a good point, thanks!
As I said my goal is to protect people from being fooled to use (even
remotely, as a service) a modified version of the software in place of
the original.

I see two solutions to this interpretation issue:
1) s/Derived Work under this License but/Derived Work under this
License as either source patches or/
2) s/but with a different name/but clearly informing its users about
the differences with the Hack./

Solution 1 seems less prone to interpretations and easier to comply
unambigously.
OTOH, solution 2 is more general and clearly states the intent of the
hackers, so I would prefer this.

What your take?


Giacomo