Re: New License/Exception Request

[Kyle Mitchell]

Sébastien,

I wrote the npm code that gave the warning you received. I contributed
that code unofficially, as a member of the npm community. I don't speak
for SPDX or npm here. Just for myself.

From a community point of view, it was very important to choose a
metadata standard that recognized "dissident" forms like WTFPL and
Unlicense. SPDX has taken the time---much of it volunteer time--- to
make that possible. Some of the SPDX-listed options are Open Source
licenses, and some are not. But all the people who use them are valued
members of our community. Public domain dedication and "anti-licenses"
are a real, if still small, movement.

It was also important not to exclude or pester members of the community
who want to use personal license terms to express themselves. npm CLI
gives warnings because, most of the time, a nonstandard `license`
property comes from forgetting to add one altogether or using an
ambiguous or misspelled identifier, like `BSD` or `Apache 2`. If the
standard-
error output really bothers you, you can change the `license` property
to `SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE.md` or similar. See
https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json#license. You could also change
to `WTFPL` and include both English and French texts in your package.

The issue of language and translations is very important, and unsolved.
I speak English natively, Russian badly, and Spanish almost  not at all
anymore. Personally, if I spoke Spanish or Russian natively, and English
as a second language, the hard-to-read English of most open- source
licenses would bring WTFPL closer to my heart. Using an English-
language WTFPL with a "translation" would bother me. Nobody likes to
feel unappreciated.

I fear taking time from everyone on the list to "standardize"
translations of "fuck" in multiple languages, even "official"
translations, would leave the members of the working group feeling very
little appreciated. On the legal side of open source, few groups deserve
it less than SPDX. It might be funny if they did. But they don't.

I know how hard it can be to work in someone else's native language.
Thank you for working in mine!

Best,

K

-- 
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request

[Sébastien Règne]

Hi,

   1. *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.
   2. 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*
   .
   3. 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 :

> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Sébastien Règne 
> 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/scronpt
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:14 PM, 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?
>
> Sam:
> 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
> proprietary notice.
>
> 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
> Sébastien's own.
> 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.
>
> And finally:
> Sébastien: if you have "RAB", why should this group GAF [1] ?
> 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
> your code.
>
>
>  [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GAF
>
> --
> Cordially
> Philippe Ombredanne
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request

[Philippe Ombredanne]

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Sébastien Règne  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/scronpt

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:14 PM, 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?

Sam:
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
proprietary notice.

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
Sébastien's own.
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.

And finally:
Sébastien: if you have "RAB", why should this group GAF [1] ?
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
your code.


 [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GAF

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal