@Shamar this is probably on your wavelength, inspired by discussion in that long thread.

@enkiv2

#Frivolous #software against corporate investment! I love it! :-D

Frivolous #Freedom!

Maybe they we leave us free to change the world if they stop to take #FreeSoftware seriously...

@enkiv2 Thank you for sharing this link. Bookmarked for future reference.

"Personal software should be personal: it should not scale or conform; it should chafe at strictures the same way you do, and burst out of any box that dare enclose it."

I should put that up as a quote on the #Kestrel3 website, especially on the page/FAQ asking if it'll ever run Linux.

@enkiv2 I know this isn't the central point of your article, but this is very much on the nose. "Others had no such illusions: they were competing for positions in an industry where performing free labor of professional quality was an implied prerquisite for being hired."

@cstanhope The article was definitely intended to intersect with commentary about exactly that. It's a response to folks who are saying that because open source has become free labor for capitalists, that it should be turned into paid labor for capitalists.

@enkiv2 great post; thanks.

if this has been published on some site other than medium let me know; I'd like to boost it.

@enkiv2 Using the AGPL for projects can also be helpful in keeping them from being exploited by large businesses, whose legal teams are sometimes too scared of the idea to even consider whether it would affect them.

@varx
It can, but it's not a sure thing. There are plenty of ways to circumvent the spirit of the license while keeping within its letter.

@enkiv2 @varx

In an Application that compose several programs, if you can see each program like a library and give an actual read to #AGPLv3 you will discover it's not that different from #LGPL.

Ultimately it grants users the right to get a copy of the program but he will never being able to self host the whole application.

This one of tge reasons that made me write the Hacking License.

@Shamar @enkiv2 I confess I haven't read the AGPL in fullness. I should do that (as well as reading some more analyses) before I start using it.

Tell me more about the Hacking License!

@varx @enkiv2

Here it is: tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt

Should be pretty readable and clear but after the discussion on #Debian Legal, I decided I want to further refine it.
You night find further information about its goals and its (intended) working there lists.debian.org/debian-legal/

I'm pretty sure it's valid and fine under #CommonLaw (eg US and UK) but I'm further studying the matter under #CivilLaw (eg Italy) to identify any issues.

1/

@varx @enkiv2

I welcome suggestions or questions (but I'd appreciate if you could read the Debian thread first, just to avoid repeating over and over again the same things).

Consider that I wrote it myself after a lot of study... but I am not a lawyer so use your own giudice.

The text of the license is copyrighted (just like the GNU licenses) which means you can use it verbatim, but if you modify it you must chanhe its name (eg MyProject Hacking License)...

2/

@varx @enkiv2

... this way, once the license will spread and everyone will know it, users could NOT be fooled to use a purposely broken version instead.

Any corrections even to the language is welcome as I'm not a netive English speaker.

For example I rewrote condition 3.8 several times but it still looks convoluted.

license feedback 

@Shamar I read through the license and some of the Debian thread. It's a long thread!

A few bits of feedback:

- « an new exact copy » -- s/an/a/
- « The license of a Wrapper is compatible with this License if it grants
to the Users access to the Wrapper's Source » -- do you want to also make sure that this access is unconditional, or at least is free of charge? (same goes for point #3 under Conditions)

[cont.]

license feedback /2 

@Shamar

- « All of these grants are free of charge, non-exclusive, [...] and can be transferred to third parties with the Hack [...] » -- You probably want to exclude organizations from the third parties to which these grants may be transferred, given that they're excluded in the initial grant.
- Warranty/liability: Please put this in normal case; corporate lawyers notwithstanding, yelling doesn't make it more binding. :-P

[cont.]

license feedback /3 (final) 

@Shamar

- Distribution of license: May want to make a note about how derived works of the license are allowed, but the name must change substantially so as to avoid confusion.

I think it would also be useful to have a Preamble the way the GPL does, framing the license in terms of how it differs from previous licenses, and what its intentions are. That would make it easier to interpret in general, and assist a non-lawyer User in understanding their rights.

@varx

Thanks for the feedbacks.

I didn't included organizations in the license as I want a license from human to human (from hacker to hacker), but some people argued that this would prevent #Debian to distribute software under this license and more importantly it could be used as a loophole, using organisations to violate the license for its members.
That's why I used that convoluted wording.
Debian clarified they won't distribute my software anyway: it might change again.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Eldritch Café

Une instance se voulant accueillante pour les personnes queers, féministes et anarchistes ainsi que pour leurs sympathisant·e·s. Nous sommes principalement francophones, mais vous êtes les bienvenu·e·s quelle que soit votre langue.

A welcoming instance for queer, feminist and anarchist people as well as their sympathizers. We are mainly French-speaking people, but you are welcome whatever your language might be.