mirabilos@rl_dane perhaps you want to remove the :FreeBSD: from your display name? https://pleroma.anduin.net/objects/c90fc5ee-d3f0-42b5-8505-304d0dd1c4ef
(maybe also Slopbian)
Giacomo Tesio@[email protected]
These days I feel a urge to resurrect #JehanneOS. Even better, restart it from #9front #MIT licensed sources adding my own code under the HackingLicense, maybe with a little addendum to explicitly leverage the Article 4(3) #CDSM’s opt-out mechanism.
@[email protected]
These days I feel a urge to resurrect #JehanneOS. Even better, restart it from #9front #MIT licensed sources adding my own code under the HackingLicense, maybe with a little addendum to explicitly leverage the Article 4(3) #CDSM’s opt-out mechanism.
@[email protected]
R.L. Dane 
🍵 
If you'll forgive the analogy, coming up with custom licenses is kinda like the old adage, "There's no such thing as a new theology, only old heresies."
(IOW: lawyering is hard and maybe should be left to lawyers. ;)
(But this isn't meant as a criticism, or to say that someone shouldn't try. Just that it is the kind of endeavor that is oft met with unexpected challenges and surprising results. ;)
I was saying that coming up with custom licenses is difficult and fraught with unintended consequences.
@[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]
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]
Meh, calling someone gatekeepers just because you don't agree with them sounds kinda flimsy, fam.
Well, putting the #HackingLicense among "ethical source" is not much fair to be honest.
Obviously, it's a #copyleft far from the #MIT and #BSD tradition.
BUT, it was designed (in 2021) to address the stealing from #FreeSoftware's developers that now runs rampant.
Now, to be honest, I'd really like if the Hacking License could be a free software license (without being an open source one) and still protect the commons shared with it. But if I have to choice between the future and the (noble) past of free software, I can accept to be blamed as "proprietary" or "non-free" or whatever... but still pursue the creation of protected commons.
If you don't know the work of #ElinorOstrom on the topic, I strongly suggest you both to read this paper that deeply informed the Hacking License.
Not to convince you to use such license or any covered work, but because I still think this is an important discussion developers should have. IMHO, it's our responsibility towards the next generation.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
Obviously, it's a #copyleft far from the #MIT and #BSD tradition.
BUT, it was designed (in 2021) to address the stealing from #FreeSoftware's developers that now runs rampant.
Now, to be honest, I'd really like if the Hacking License could be a free software license (without being an open source one) and still protect the commons shared with it. But if I have to choice between the future and the (noble) past of free software, I can accept to be blamed as "proprietary" or "non-free" or whatever... but still pursue the creation of protected commons.
If you don't know the work of #ElinorOstrom on the topic, I strongly suggest you both to read this paper that deeply informed the Hacking License.
Not to convince you to use such license or any covered work, but because I still think this is an important discussion developers should have. IMHO, it's our responsibility towards the next generation.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
#OSI literally maintain a list of "approved" #opensource licenses.
They are very corporate friendly. More precisely, #BigTech friendly.
In fact, they refused #SSPL when #Amazon was among their top sponsors and adopted the much more subversive #CAL when #HoloChain was among their top sponsors.
Furthermore, I partecipated to the discussions around the #OSAID some years ago and I've never met such a corrupt environment before. They used absurd tricks to please #Google and #Meta and not include "training data" among the requirements, so that they could easily break free of #AIAct.
So, they are not just gatekeepers, but basically unregistered BigTech lobbyists.
CC: @[email protected]
They are very corporate friendly. More precisely, #BigTech friendly.
In fact, they refused #SSPL when #Amazon was among their top sponsors and adopted the much more subversive #CAL when #HoloChain was among their top sponsors.
Furthermore, I partecipated to the discussions around the #OSAID some years ago and I've never met such a corrupt environment before. They used absurd tricks to please #Google and #Meta and not include "training data" among the requirements, so that they could easily break free of #AIAct.
So, they are not just gatekeepers, but basically unregistered BigTech lobbyists.
CC: @[email protected]
I don't doubt that they have tons of corporate influence, like nearly everything else in this space (sadly), but the FSF didn't approve it, either. It could just be that it's too restrictive towards fields of use.
But that's 90% over my head, to be honest. ;)
@giacomo @rl_dane OSI has made itself redundant recently, yeah.
I don’t have a problem with a list of OSD-/FSD-/DFSG-/OKD-/Copyfree/…-conforming copyright licences otherwise. (tbh maybe I should start one of my own, though I’d default to acceptance by at least one org and mostly list the deviations I’ve looked at) (if I had the time and spoons)
Escape plan@rl_dane
I think you lost the argument the moment you decided to argue against a hacker license. By definition I don't think the authors care that much about what govs or big tech thinks of the license.
I think you lost the argument the moment you decided to argue against a hacker license. By definition I don't think the authors care that much about what govs or big tech thinks of the license.
To be clear, I wasn't making an argument against restrictive licensing, or even balking at the fact that it was more restrictive than GPL v3. I was chiefly making an observation that coming up with licenses is a difficult and nuanced affair.
I have a pretty open mind when it comes to licensing, understanding the relative merits and pitfalls of permissive, copyleft, and the newer, nebulous category of "post-open" licensing, which the hacker license may be similar to.
These are very difficult questions, and I don't have super strong opinions on it, because it's honestly way over my head. I absolutely don't have easy answers for any of this. I've seen the Linux world go from a scruffy hacker project to a huge corporate machine, and I've seen the good and the bad that has come from that transformation.
I'm pretty visceral and vehement when it comes to the issue of LLM usage, because I can see the good and the bad of that pretty clearly. But licensing? No idea man, do your best and the best to you all.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯