Perhaps I've got the problem. Maybe we lack a forth clear-cut test expressing your insight that can exclude the Hacking License as a free license? I would be glad to help designing such test even if it would turn out that there's no way to reform the Hacking License to pass it.
Unfortunately, right now I can't grasp your insight about the text of the License (I published a further update at http://www.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt that receipt an interesting issues that has been pointed out by adding a new condition 3.6, but I didn't share it here because I don't really want to annoy people who don't care...) If you can help me understand the problems you see, we could try to design a new test that make them evident together. Giacomo On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 12:14, Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it> wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 11:07, Xavier <y...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > Le 06/12/2018 à 10:29, Giacomo Tesio a écrit : > > > Il giorno gio 6 dic 2018 alle ore 02:12 Ben Finney > > > <bign...@debian.org> ha scritto: > > >> Giacomo, I again ask you: please don't impose on the free software > > >> community the burden of yet another roll-your-own license text. > > > > > > Ben, I'm a hacker. And I'm Italian. > > > To me Freedom will NEVER mean permission to pick a product off the shelf. > > > > it seems to be a little conflict between what you want to do and the > > spirit of DFSG: > > Hi Xavier, > if it was not clear, the product I was talking about was the license, > not the software > As Cicero said befor me and RMS: «Libertas (...) non in eo est ut > iusto utamur domino, sed ut nullo.» > > > - DFSG have been chosen in the spirit: using debian/main, you are free > > to do anything you want without having to look at each package (even > > if you sell hardware embedding it,...), but if you use non-free > > branch, you have to check each license to be sure you are granted to > > use this software > > This is an interesting interpretation, but in contraddiction with the > presence of AGPLv3 software in the free branch. > In general, you cannot "do anything you want" with a software under copyleft. > > > - it seems you want to restrict this for your package usage, then > > non-free is the good branch to publish it > > There must be a language barrirer at work here: I'm not sure about > what I would want to restrict. > Could give an example? I'm really confused by your words. > > Again, if the set of licenses allowed for software in Debian free > branch is extablished and no new copyleft can enter it, I just need to > know it. > If not, if a new package distributed under a new copyleft license can > be compatible with the Debian values, it should be distributed in the > free branch, shoudn't it? > > So the point is wherther such copyleft license is compatible or can be > made compatible with Debian definition of Free Software (which is what > I'm actually asking here), or not. > > Really, I'm talking about values, not letter. > I'm NOT looking for loopholes in the DFSG or something, I'm just > trying to ensure the Hacking License is clearly compatible with the > spirit of Debian (as I think it is). > > I'm more than happy to remove every ambiguity if you can point me them. > If you tell me something like: "Statement X.Y could be interpreted in > a way incompatible with our values because of a, b and c" I would be > happy to clarify or fix it. > As I tried to do with many passages that have been pointed out > publicily or privately. > > > > This is a issue of existing international copyright regulation. > > > If you want to reform it, I'm totally with you. > > > No software should be allowed to be proprietary or secret. > > > > > > By turning users to hackers, the Hacking License is a step into this > > > direction. > > > > This is clearly in conflict with DFSG. > > How so? > This is a honest question, not a rethorical one. > > Also, note that it is just a long term goal only expressed in the > Preamble: turning users to hackers is not a requirement, a condition, > a legal effect or something, it's just the combined social effect of a > strong copyleft applyied to software that is designed to be simple and > easy to study and modify. Every GNU license does the same, just to a > lesser extent. > > The Hacking License does NOT limit the Users' freedoms to empower the > Hackers' ones: it empowers both and try to smooth as much as possible > the transition between the two states. > > The fact is that I don't think that Knowledge is Power, but that > Ignorance is Weakness: the more Users learn, the more Free they are. > The Hacking License turns them to hackers in the sense that it > maximise the knowledge they can legally access and challenge with new > experients (aka study and modify). > That's it. > > How this is in conflict with DFSG? > > > "non-free" branch isn't there to > > blame projects but just to explain to users that they have to check > > license before using it. > > I'm confused from such statement. > I always check if the software I install from Debian free is released > under AGPLv3 or not. > Are them all in the non-free branch? I've never noticed it. > > > >>> Does this license match the DFSG? > > > > This is your choice and you are in your right. > > Thanks for acknowledging my right to decide how to license my software. > I appreciate it. > > > Thanks for contributing to free software. > > You are welcome! :-D > > My Free Software is a gift and I want it to stay free for everybody > and to keep generating more gifts for everybody recursively and > unbound. > > I think this match very well the Debian values. > If the Hacking License doesn't clearly express this goal, I'm happy to > reform it. > > But I would need more clear objections to the problematic points of the text. > "It's all wrong" doesn't work well here because it clearly passes all > tests and clearly matches the letter of the DFSG. > That's why I'm annoying you here: to understand which passage you find > in contrast with the _values_ of Debian. > > > Giacomo
