Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Prepend space for change request discussion #8

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: lpl-v2-derivatives
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

alexgenaud
Copy link
Owner

No description provided.

LICENSE Outdated
Permission is granted hereby,
to copy, share, use, modify,
for purposes any,
for free or for money,
Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
for free or for money,
for free or some money,
  • "some" has same one syllable as "for"
  • reduce the number of "for" from three to two
  • explicitly implies (explies?) "some" rather than "huge cost"
  • the "s" in "some money" may parallel "purposes any" better?
  • does not change meaning, yet hints toward generosity.

LICENSE Outdated
'tis unmerchantable shit.
Liability for damages denied.

Limerick Permissive License (LPL v2)
Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Was "Poetic License" which is ungoogleable. "Poetry" sounds refined and hauty, which is exactly not what I intend. After all it IS a "limerick".

I'm inspired by "public licenses" such as GPL and MPL, yet the LPL is far more similar to BSD and MIT, nearly identical to ISC, and not even the verbose Apache mentions "public license" anywhere. Perhaps no more nor less than "Limerick", "Permissive", and "License" describe what this word salad actually IS.

LICENSE Outdated
for, no purpose fit,
'tis unmerchantable shit.
Liability for damages denied.
Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've recently reversed the stanzas to parallel the ISC and MIT licenses. Does it make any difference? Is the order arbitrary? All licenses offer software for any purpose then later or before assert no fitness for any purpose. They perfectly contradict, whether in this order and in that way.

For a dozen years, I had the warranty above the permissions and conditions. I prefer that arrangement because the first line of the warranty introduces "this work.. I provide" and the final line of the conditions sums up the rhymes and what to do with (not shove) them.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant