@Wuzzy@cyberplace.socialFirst it's important to note that over years I realized that
#OSI is just a corporate (and US-led) gatekeeper organization that serve the very interests their sponsors.
You can easily see this reading their
license review mailing while keeping a tab opened on the sponsors page of the day through the
#WaybackMachine.
Just as a couple of example, they rejected
#MongoDB's
#SSPL while
#Amazon was their major sponsor and adopted
CAL that was
way more contentious.
The last damage that OSI did to our communities has been the
#Meta dictated
#OSAID (OpenSource
#AI Definition) better known as
#OpenWashing Definition, that superseed the
#OSD and does not require training data sharing, voiding the freedom to study and welcoming
toxic candies within "open source" just to avoid the
#AIAct requirements.
So I don't care about OSI opinion about the
#HackingLicense (or about anything else).
Having said that, you are right that its first condition forbid any use of the covered work that would limit third party access or use of it.
So basically you can't use your freedom to limit the freedom of others.
Is it still a free license?
Never asked to
#RMS or
#FSF, but I guess that such formal constraint makes it "not free" to their eyes.
What they miss, imho, is that freedom without communion is always going to be exploited by the strongers (under
#capitalism, the rich) to oppress the weakest (everybody else, the workers, the customers, the environment...) as
#LLM are showing these days.
In fact the latest version of the
#HackingLicense was written in response ti
#GitHub #Copilot (aka
#CopyALot), after it distributed
#GPLv3 code from
#Quake with a wrong attribution and a permissive license.
The Hacking License is a dependency inversion: if you use data or code covered by it, anything that come out can be used under such license.
