Discussion about adding Anti-996 to Github official 关于让Github官方认可Anti-996 license的讨论

[kattgu7]

No description provided.

[ff4415]

It mentioned that only a small number are highlighted on the home page and
there are several requirements for a license to be cataloged on the site:

1. The license must have an SPDX identifier. If your license isn't registered
   with SPDX, please request that it be added.

2. The license must be listed on one of the following approved lists of licenses:

   • List of OSI approved licenses
   • GNU's list of free licenses (note: the license must be listed in one of the three "free" categories)
   • Open Definition's list of conformant licenses (non-code)

3. A GitHub code search must reveal at least 1,000 public repositories using the license.

4. 3 notable projects using the license must be identified. These must have straightforward LICENSE files which serve as examples newcomers can follow and that could be detected by licensee if it knew about the license.

---

Right now there is more than 1600 repos using 996 license by github search .

So Item No.3 has Fitted, but the consensus in 996 licenses are not.

As for Item No.4, there is 996.ICU, 955.WLB and Anti-996-License and a lot of repos with stars more than 3k. I am not sure about the word "notable ". I think Item No.4 is fitted.

[yongyizang]

I don't think Item No.4 is necessarily fitted. This may be the first time GitHub - even the entire open source community - has ever seen a movement producing a license based on several GitHub Repos. I personally think GitHub is establishing Item No.4 to illustrate the influence the license should be having out in the actual open source community rather than the movement community itself. I honestly don't think using our own repos for Item No.4 can be actually seen as fitted.

[ff4415]

@zangyongyi

How about this: AwesomeList.

After all, it depends on how GitHub defining the "notable project".

[Tedko]

@ff4415 @zangyongyi whats the progress so far? sorry didnt follow up in the past 2days.

[Tedko]

I think most of these requirements is already satisfied?

[ff4415]

It mentioned that only a small number are highlighted on the home page and
there are several requirements for a license to be cataloged on the site:

1. The license must have an SPDX identifier. If your license isn't registered
   with SPDX, please request that it be added.

2. The license must be listed on one of the following approved lists of licenses:

   • List of OSI approved licenses
   • GNU's list of free licenses (note: the license must be listed in one of the three "free" categories)
   • Open Definition's list of conformant licenses (non-code)

3. A GitHub code search must reveal at least 1,000 public repositories using the license.

4. 3 notable projects using the license must be identified. These must have straightforward LICENSE files which serve as examples newcomers can follow and that could be detected by licensee if it knew about the license.

Right now there is more than 1600 repos using 996 license by github search .

So Item No.3 has Fitted, but the consensus in 996 licenses are not.

As for Item No.4, there is 996.ICU, 955.WLB and Anti-996-License and a lot of repos with stars more than 3k. I am not sure about the word "notable ". I think Item No.4 is fitted.

---

@Tedko

个人感觉 列出的4条，后面两条已经或者几乎已经满足。

SPDX 需要有人提交申请走流程。

第二条需要 license 和开源社区兼容。

[Tedko]

It mentioned that only a small number are highlighted on the home page and
there are several requirements for a license to be cataloged on the site:

1. The license must have an SPDX identifier. If your license isn't registered
   with SPDX, please request that it be added.

2. The license must be listed on one of the following approved lists of licenses:

   • List of OSI approved licenses
   • GNU's list of free licenses (note: the license must be listed in one of the three "free" categories)
   • Open Definition's list of conformant licenses (non-code)

3. A GitHub code search must reveal at least 1,000 public repositories using the license.

4. 3 notable projects using the license must be identified. These must have straightforward LICENSE files which serve as examples newcomers can follow and that could be detected by licensee if it knew about the license.

Right now there is more than 1600 repos using 996 license by github search .
So Item No.3 has Fitted, but the consensus in 996 licenses are not.
As for Item No.4, there is 996.ICU, 955.WLB and Anti-996-License and a lot of repos with stars more than 3k. I am not sure about the word "notable ". I think Item No.4 is fitted.

@Tedko

个人感觉 列出的4条，后面两条已经或者几乎已经满足。

SPDX 需要有人提交申请走流程。

第二条需要 license 和开源社区兼容。

第二条要等意见。类似于GNU完全可能重新讨论。但是OSI我觉得不太会立刻支持

[Tedko]

@ff4415 有没有可能有一种别的方法（除了等github官方），比如一个浏览器插件？脑洞

[ff4415]

@Tedko
第二条最重要。 license 是社区讨论的基础，决定了我们能否得到开源社区的支持。
没有 license 的法理基础，我们的讨论就缺乏依据。
license 的法理关系理清了，社区基础也有了。推动是顺理成章的。

---

期待 @kattgu7 的论文。

[wqcwqcwqc]

感谢反对996的每个人，割韭菜喽割韭菜

[Tedko]

#54

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/a-roundup-of-recent-updates-to-our-licensing-materials-november-2018-to-june-2019
Per FSF, they don't think Anti-996 satisfied their definition of Free-Software-License. We may need a complete separate Software movement for this category

See: https://radicalxchange.org/blog/posts/2019-05-31-tz00lw/

[xiebincheng]

是