@freezr

La #HackingLicense è più subdola: puoi farci quello che vuoi, ma tutto ciò che produci (incluso l'output o un "modello AI") deve essere distribuito sotto la stessa licenza.

https://monitora-pa.it/LICENSE.txt

@informapirata

@freezr

In effetti la #HackingLicense (che usiamo in #MonitoraPA) è pensata tenendo conto anche di AI come GitHub CopyALot: https://monitora-pa.it/LICENSE.txt

@informapirata @carolafrediani

@fucking_good_dpo

tranquillo Christian: solo quello che scrivo io sulla chat è sotto #HackingLicense 😉

@nemobis 🤣

I don't know... I'm not sure.

As you know, I'd be very happy to find a way to keep ALL public domain derivative work... within the commons heritage of humanity.

I even wrote the #HackingLicense to achieve this sort of legal effect (and I know you do not like it).

@mmu_man

Except one that hides to the users the source they are copying, helping them to violate any open-source license that requires proper attribution and, what's worse, any #copyleft imposing reciprocity https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/E5R5lsfXoAQDRkE.mp4

That's why I wrote the #HackingLicense http://www.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt so that when we will be able to prove that #Copilot distributed any work under such license, we will have to assume that #Microsoft accepted the license, that the "models" of #CopyALot are used under its terms and thus all the software that adopted its "suggestions" can be used under its terms too.

@BrodieOnLinux

@t0k

The Purpose of the #HackingLicense is to create a cultural and technological corpus that will grow and evolve completely and exclusively as a common heritage of humanity.

It's designed to cover and extend to any intellectual artifact and to go beyond the anachronistic distinction between contents, data and code.

Code is data and data is code.

However even ICs are intellectual artifacts that people should be able to donate to humanity without fear of any corporation exploiting them without giving back anything to the community.

That's why I included mask-rights after studying CERN OHL (and all the others listed here: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Open_Hardware_Licenses )

@neil

For sure, as long as they are really constructive.

I invited all of the lawyers that joined that conversation to read the license, explain any issue they see (with reference to where it occurs in the license's text and the law that underline the issue) and suggest improvements that make the #HackingLicense more viral and more effective in reaching its purpose.

But obviously the invitation is open to everybody!

@ekaitz_zarraga @aral @Pixificial @craigmaloney @Curia @noybeu

@aral @ekaitz_zarraga @Pixificial @craigmaloney

Little follow up about the #HackingLicense.

It has been adoped by #MonitoraPA, an automatic and distributed observatory written in #Python with the explicit goal to be easy to hack and run for any teenager who just learnt the language from an online tutorial.

On our first run we detected 7833 public administrations' websites using #GoogleAnalytics.

We formally requested all of their DPO and Data Controller to remove it as its usage is in violation of #GDPR as established by the #Schrems2 sentence of @Curia (thanks to @noybeu).

Two weeks later, almost 4000 italian public administrations (several hundreds of schools!) that were sending to #Google detailed data about every page visit, removed Google Analytics.

More details about the project are available (in Italian) at https://monitora-pa.it

Next week we will officially run our observatory again, we will notify again PA that still have Google Analytics in violation of #GDPR, but we will also escalate to the various Authorities that Italian and European Law provide.

And obviously, Google Analytics is just a starting point!

We are refactoring our code to make it trivial to add more conformity checks even beyond the web and to run it over different data sources so that people can easily run our observatory over any set of websites, from political parties to football clubs.

And in the July's run, we hope to detect and request removal for at least #GoogleFont connections and #Facebook Tracking Pixels too.

Obviously we got several powerful enemies. #Google for first, but also several Italian lawyers and administrators that did not protected citizens personal data.

And among them, quite expected, compromised organizations like #OSI that are spreading #FUD about our license of choice without even reading it or trying to help us to improve it.

https://github.com/hermescenter/monitorapa/issues/39#issuecomment-1140274175

@t0k

Basically #FUD.

As you said, #Google does whatever it can to build ecosystems that depends on it, technically and culturally.

They did so in 2010 with #GoogleChrome through #Mozilla. It did so with #Android. And #QUIC. And #HTTP3.

#AGPLv3 has several limits (that I tried to address with the #HackingLicense) but the strongest the #copyleft the better.

Sticking with #AGPL and resisting to Google's pressure won't save your ecosystem alone.

BUT it might make their capture weaker and their abuse of their dominant position more evident.

As for AGPLv3 be harder to use, that's plain bullshit. As long as they use your software unmodified, they do not even need to host a copy of the code. They just need to provide users a link to your repository.

It's pretty easy.
But they do not want to.

In the long run, an AGPL alternative out of Google's control might enable the creation of an alternative ecosystem, and they want to minimize this risk as much as they can.

Without looking evil, obviously.

But if you look at Google from outside the USA, it's slowly becoming a huge geopolitical liability.

Europe is realizing that depending on #GAFAM means becoming an US colony.

And alternatives like your might get much more support from here.

So my suggestion is to ignore the FUD and resist Google.

@t0k

Something else: adopt the #HackingLicense http://www.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt

As an alternative, stay with #AGPLv3.

The choice is:

- let #Google exploit your work as #FreeLabour, or
- force Google to pay to compete with you but starting from scratch

Never let the bully get what they want.

@Thelie

No legal precedence, sorry.

I wrote the #HackingLicense (with the help of a lawyer) to address the issues I see in mainstream #copyleft such as #GPLv3 and #AGPLv3.

These were my first choice before realizing their limits in protecting all evolutions of a covered work.

Few projects use it, mostly because I'm involved. For example https://github.com/hermescenter/monitorapa

@rysiek

@rysiek

I do not know if you would qualify the #HackingLicense as "anti-capitalist", but in fact it doesn't forbid commercial use (nor derivatives) while ensuring (contractually) a wider reciprocity.

http://www.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt

Unfortunately, #AGPLv3 doesn't achieve enough protection against #SaaS (tbf, it doesn't even try to, as esplained here https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html ) nor automated #Copyleft violations like #GitHubCopilot:

@aral

There are several and I should definitely find the time to write something about them (and maybe debate with #RMS about them).

One evident and recent one has been shown by the #GitHub #Copilot affaire: code is data too, but the #GPL does not require sharing the output of such kind of compilation.

But there are many other ways that the knowledge contained in or derived by #AGPL software can be privatized.

Indeed AGPL does not prevent embrace, extend, extinguish tactics.

It may well keep in the commons the derivative works of a specific software but does not affect any software built on top of it, in particular if its services are provided through standard protocols.

Also the Oracle vs Google has shown that any innovative API gifted to commons by #FreeSoftware hackers would be taken by #BigTech corporations and turned into exploitation tool: if it happened to Oracle's Java API, it will happen to any Free Software that affect the interests of people running such corporations.

Not to mention complexity! Or patents!

The #HackingLicense address all of this.
In includes a copyright and patent assignment TO THE USER, both conditioned to the preservation in the commons of both derivative works AND works dependent on it.

It's not a #copyleft designed to protect priviledge but to build a free cultural corpus of commons that belong to the whole humanity and cannot be turned into exploitation of free labor.

@ekaitz_zarraga @Pixificial @craigmaloney

@ekaitz_zarraga

I spent some time tweaking it with a lawyer that is expert in IP and Free Software licensing.

Obviously he noticed how the wording makes it formally violate the freedom zero: you must NOT use the Hack to restrict the rights granted by the license to third parties.

But that's part of the Hacking License being an hack itself: it's designed to be incompatible with any definition of freedom that reduces commons to garbage anybody can exploit.

So while a judge would enforce it as a wrap contract and a license, it is neither compatible with #OSI (yeah!) nor with #FSF (sadly, but inevitably).

Unfortunately the native culture of #Stallman tainted #FreeSoftware in subtle ways that made it easy for corporations to exploit the work of #hackers.

They always find a way, as #GitHubCopilot has shown.

The #HackingLicense is designed to keep not only hackers work in the commons, but also any derivative work and any work dependent on it.

To make ALL knowledge free for people who share what they learn.

@ekaitz_zarraga

Unfortunately the #AGPL has new loopholes now.

My network #copyleft of choice, right now is the #HackingLicense: http://www.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt

@aral @Pixificial @craigmaloney

@minimalprocedure@mastodon.uno

Sappi che ci sto seriamente pensando.

Non so solo come formularla in modo sufficientemente generico e future proof:

- AI e ML sono tutti termini fuffa ma per ora sono ancora l'unico a parlare più correttamente di "programmazione statistica"

- la #HackingLicense non si applica solo al software ma anche ai contenuti ed ai database

Se hai suggerimenti, sei il benvenuto!

Hi @tindall, just read your thread at https://qoto.org/web/statuses/106500375406792092 and I totally agree.

#GitHub Copilot's models are derivative works (and derived works) of the sources used to calibrate them and thus can violate #copyright (and patents?!) encapsulated in those sources.

I have a question though.

You wrote:
```
If you trained it on MPL code, you are in violation of that license.
```

What clause are you referring to?

In this days I'm finalizing the #HackingLicense (see http://www.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt ) and I was thinking about this specific problem.

Assuming it could be expressed properly in legalese (without turning the license in a software-only one), I'd be very happy to explicitly impose that any work automatically built out of a covered work would be covered too. If you know a license that impose such terms, I would be eager to learn more about it (MPL is not one... o maybe I'm missing something?)

I've just published a new (and hopefully last) version of the #HackingLicense, a strong #copyleft that should be applicable to to software, contents and database and that includes a conditioned copyright assignment to the licensee.

Compared with the previous versions is way shorter an cleaner.

Any comment is welcome.

http://www.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt

NOTE: this version of the Hacking License has NOT been written or analysed by a lawyer expert in Intellectual Property yet. I strongly advise you to NOT use it without proper legal advise.

@Ted

It's somewhat funny, but very incorrect.
Even MIT and BSD impose obligations on people builing on licensed code, just fewer than a #copyleft.

Actually, such swallow depiction of free software licenses is quite similar to calling int64_t as "integer". 😅

As for an even stronger copyleft, I wrote the #HackingLicense: http://www.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt

I must admit that I'm not yet happy with its formulation, but it can give an idea of what I hate in weaker copylefts like the #AGPLv3.
I'm going to remove the "organizations" thing. Making it shorter would be nice but apparently I can't without opening to corporate abuse one way or another.

In any case, if you want to give it a read and show me a way it could advantage big corps, I'll promise I'll study a fix for that.

@newt @duponin

@dgold after reading this https://lipu.dgold.eu/original-sin.html I think you might find interesting #HESSLA http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/hessla.php and my #HackingLicense http://www.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt

I've found particularly interesting your insights about #individualism and #Capitalism in #FreeSoftware.

I reached a similar conclusion, but I noticed that one of the issue is that corporations have legal personhood, so that such individualism somehow works in their favour instead of the whole humanity.

Thus the restrictions to organizations in the Hacking License.