1. 6

The terms and conditions of this license give you the rights and norms you need to become a hacker, to learn what we ignore and to challenge our assumptions by teaching us what you’ll learn.

  1.  

  2. 2

    I like it but I have no idea about any of the legal repercussions (as I mentioned earlier on irc)

    1. 2

      Not a fan, personally. This is like the GPL, but with a sever ability and termination clause not very conducive to the 4 software freedoms.

      1. 1

        Actually it’s intended to be an AGPLv3 on steroids, but designed so that

        • you can profit from the Hack but not from rights over such Hack (since I think such rights should be automatically granted to everybody)
        • all users share such rights (independently of how they interact with the Hack)
        • it forces corporations to share wrappers with a compatible license
        • it move trusts from the License’s author (me or FSF for the AGPL) to the Hackers who created the Hack removing the need to use an “or later version”

        It has a strong and definitive termination because I don’t want to let corporation use their power to get fix their sin.

        not very conducive to the 4 software freedoms

        I’d really like if you could elaborate. What do you mean?

        1. 1

          Well, the 4 software freedoms, as defined by the FSF are:

          The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

          I “feel” (No legal theory) that the severability clause precludes #0.

          1. 1
            5. Severability

            The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this License does not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this License. Such provision is to be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it valid and enforceable.

            Mind to elaborate?
            Maybe a language barrier, but I don’t undestand what you mean.

        2. 1

          To be honest, I don’t like it heaps either, but I can see where it would be used. Personally I license most of my projects under the MIT License.

          1. 1

            Personally I license most of my projects under the MIT License.

            Which is totally fine!
            I’m not against permissive licenses: they are even defined as compatible for wrappers in the Hacking License.

            But may I ask what you don’t like about it?
            Are you against copyleft in general? Or maybe against AGPLv3 reach?
            Or is it just something related to this licence?

            I really appreciate feedbacks.

            1. 2

              I’m not against the idea of copyleft, I’m just against some of the extremes a license goes to. I’d prefer a permissive license over copyleft for a personal project, however copyleft over closed-source; copyright. The GPL and AGPL are a bit too extreme for me - the LGPL is ok. It’s just my opinion - nothing to do with your license. Your license is great for it’s intention.

        3. 2

          I hacked my own license: https://tildegit.org/murii/ETUL-License

          1. 2

            Be careful that it lacks a NO WARRANTY disclaimer, and afaik without it you could be sued for demage that one of your users pretend the software caused them.

            Also, without it, many companies wouldn’t modify your software to avoid the risk.

            1. 2

              NO WARRANTY disclaimer

              Thanks, I’ll add it!

              Edit 1: Could you check it out and tell me if it’s alright? Thanks!

              1. 2

                Well… I’m not a lawyer!

                I can’t really say if it’s alright, but I don’t see any serious issue in it.

                It seems a simple and permissive license. (which is a good thing)

                1. 2

                  That’s exactly my intention! Thanks!

          2. 1

            Do I have it correct that if I make a Derived Work the Hackers of the Inspiring Hack have the copyright of my Derived Work???? I personally am really opposed to this…

            1. 1

              Yes, you share the copyright of your Derived Work with the Hackers of the Inspiring Hack.

              Note however that such grant is

              • non-exclusive: you can grant it to others too and you still hold the copyright over your changes plenty, differently from what happens with CLAs (that this way become less sustainable)
              • such upstream hackers need your Hack to use it in any way, so they become Users of your hack and thus such grant terminates if they use it to violate the rights of other users of your Hack (see Conditions, par 6)
              • it can be transferred to third parties only with the Hack, its Source or any Derived Work but for no charge.

              Maybe the wording is not clear enough? Or you are still opposed to this?

              1. 2

                Oh, you share it. So could I terminate any copyright the Hackers of the Inspiring Hack have on it?

                1. 1

                  No. But they can lose it by violating the license.

                  Edit: to be clear, they can lose the rights you share with them, over your own modifications. They cannot lose the rights over the code or contents they created.