@[email protected]

In this case, the consequence is intended.

The #HackingLicense is not an #opensource license, nor it's intended to be one.

I don't care about #OSI #gatekeepers.

However that particular requirement (that's by far not the most heretic 😉) should be read in the context of the whole license/contract that is basically a dependency inversion applyied to #copyleft: the goal is to protect a common good from appropiation; the method is requiring (and providing) conditioned copyright assignments to the users, so that any derivative or dependent work can be used under the same license.

To sue anybody for using a work under the terms of the Hacking License, a company should first prove to the Judge exclusive ownership of the #copyright over the work. But if they used anything under the Hacking License (thus accepting its terms) they can not.

And since #hackers love recursion, the license itself (that must be distributed with any derivative and dependent work) is under the Hacking License... 😇

@[email protected]

Mind you, the participants were largely aristocratic #elites, so this was a limited entry club & outsiders rare. This is a period when these elites were trusted as #gatekeepers & intermediaries. They self-funded & peer reviewed each other w/passioned polemic debates & reputation/ego management.