1. 3

    DISCLAIMER: I do not intent to start a flamewar.

    In my honest opinion, this person hasn’t gone into enough depth. What I think they fail to understand is that people have and do go into a lot of effort to ensure that there isn’t a country-global wide cybersecurity disaster. The NSA or ASIO here in Australia do a LOT of work to prevent these, and they do a good job at it.

    While we can’t stop security flaws found in systems; after all we are human; we can drastically prevent many other sectors of cybersecurity. While the article claims that a digital Perl Harbor has not yet happened, I think the fact that in this year alone I’ve seen at least 10 breaches containing over 100 million passwords is a major issue.

    While events may not affect entire countries, a cyberbreach can destroy someones entire life. Take this for example. Someone hacks into someone’s bank account and funnels out all their money. Financial life destroyed. Someone takes someone’s phone. Social life destroyed. All these events add up, and this is much more rare with non-cyber disasters. The other day, I was talking to someone with whom ransomware has destroyed their business. These things add up.

    TL;DR: While the general structure and the core systems of the Internet are very secure and difficult to be breached (unlike physical places in the real world), the end users aren’t educated to prevent breaches and as such many littler breaches happen on end users that can destroy their lives (unlike the real world).

    1. 1

      Good point. There’s still plenty of damage being done, but I think the point being made here is that the doomsday scenarios predicted by the cybersecurity field have by and large not happened (even including the fact that investment in security has only kept pace with other tech investment).

      1. 1

        I’ll give them that, there hasn’t actually been a huge “doomsday” scenario, but as I said people do a crap-ton to prevent that.

    1. 2

      i used to make quite a number of prs on here, it’s really great!

      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.

          1. 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.