Re: New License/Exception Request
Sébastien Règne <regseb@...>
toggle quoted message Show quoted text
- LPRAB and WTFPL-2.0 have the same author (Sam Hocevar). So if the English version is an open source license, the French counterpart must be as.
- This license isn't popular, but it's used by some people : I found about fifty projects which use LPRAB in GitHub ; Google returns 13,000 results and the contributions in the French Wikipédia can be placed under LPRAB.
- Yes, the terms "rien à branler" is vulgar.
I used this license - for small projects - because it's very simple and in French. But npm reports the warning "license should be a valid SPDX license expression". So I ask to add it.
2016-09-28 8:51 GMT+02:00 Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...>:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Sébastien Règne <regseb@...> wrote:
>> I propose to add the license Rien À Branler, that is the official French
>> translation of WTFLP v2.
>> Full Name : Licence Publique Rien À Branler
>> Short Identifier : LPRAB
>> Website : http://sam.zoy.org/lprab/
>> OSI-approved : No
>> Program that uses this license : https://github.com/regseb/scro
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Sam Ellis <Sam.Ellis@...> wrote:
> My initial question is, is this really a different license that requires
> different identification, or is it just a variant of the existing WTFPL and
> should be identified the same? This seems a grey area, since it may depend
> on the quality of the translation and how official the translation is.
> However, I think there is a reasonable case to make this a separate license.
> For instance, the website already uses the identifier LPRAB and it also has
> a different version number from the original.
> What do other people think?
I have several issues with this "notice":
1- this is not a license: the way I read this text in contrast with
its English counterpart the terms would apply **only to its own
license text** and not to any software that would include this text:
software using such a notice would be about the same as not being
licensed at all and no right would be granted beyond modifying the
license text: I cannot see this as having the general attributes of an
"open source" license and I would at best treat this as a problematic
2- I do not see it as notable and significant. This is not "in common
use" in my book. For instance the only NPM packages using this are
I think this group should neither condone nor endorse vanity or prank
licenses explicitly or implicitly.
3- the profanity used has a different meaning and I would not consider
it as gender neutral (in contrast with its English counterpart) which
makes it more offensive.
I think this group should neither condone nor endorse offensive
licenses explicitly or implicitly.
In addition, several package managers now use the SPDX list to
validate the license of an uploaded package and either reject the
package or issue a warning if the license is not in the SPDX list: I
think issuing a warning in this case is a good thing as I interpret
this text as granting no software usage right whatsoever.
Therefore I think this group should reject adding this notice to the SPDX list.
And if this is really an official translation, then there is nothing
to do here anyway.
Sébastien: if you have "RAB", why should this group GAF  ?
My 2 cents: you should consider seriously using some common licensing
that actually grants some usage rights unless --as your license choice
may suggest-- you do not care at all that none would be allowed to use