Hi maintainers,
Thanks for assembling and curating this BPA ruleset — it's an excellent reference for Power BI semantic model quality, and it's saved a lot of repos a lot of broken refreshes.
I wanted to flag that the repository currently has no LICENSE file at the root, and gh api repos/TabularEditor/BestPracticeRules returns "license": null. In the absence of an explicit license, the default in many jurisdictions is "all rights reserved," which makes it legally ambiguous for downstream projects to vendor or re-port the rules.
I'm asking on behalf of an open-source-leaning project (Olsen Consulting / JO_PBIMCP) that has re-implemented a subset of these rules in pure Python, with explicit attribution to the TabularEditor source. We'd like to be unambiguously in the clear, both for our own re-port and for anyone else who's done similar work.
What would help
Adding either of these to the repository root would resolve the ambiguity:
- MIT — most permissive; explicitly grants reuse, modification, and re-distribution with attribution. The standard for community rule libraries.
- Apache-2.0 — adds patent-grant language; sometimes preferred for enterprise-adopter-heavy projects.
Either is fine — I have no preference, just looking for any explicit grant.
What we are doing in the meantime
- We are not executing the Dynamic-LINQ rule expressions; every rule we use has been hand-ported to Python, with the upstream JSON file vendored only as metadata (rule IDs / names / descriptions / severities) and a SHA256-pinned audit hash.
- Every Python rule cites its TabularEditor counterpart in attribution.
- We are not redistributing the JSON as a standalone artefact.
- We have a pre-promotion gate in our codebase that prevents the BPA validator from being default-on until this license question is resolved.
If you want to see the relevant context, the vendor posture is documented at: https://github.com/Olsen-Consulting/JO_PBIMCP/blob/main/core/bpa/vendor/VENDOR_INFO.md
Past similar requests
I checked open + closed issues and didn't find a prior license-clarification thread; happy to be pointed at one if I missed it.
Thanks for considering — totally understand if the answer is "we'll get to it" rather than a same-day fix. Even a one-line response in this thread granting permission would unblock our default-on promotion.
— Jonathan Olsen, Olsen Consulting
Hi maintainers,
Thanks for assembling and curating this BPA ruleset — it's an excellent reference for Power BI semantic model quality, and it's saved a lot of repos a lot of broken refreshes.
I wanted to flag that the repository currently has no LICENSE file at the root, and
gh api repos/TabularEditor/BestPracticeRulesreturns"license": null. In the absence of an explicit license, the default in many jurisdictions is "all rights reserved," which makes it legally ambiguous for downstream projects to vendor or re-port the rules.I'm asking on behalf of an open-source-leaning project (Olsen Consulting / JO_PBIMCP) that has re-implemented a subset of these rules in pure Python, with explicit attribution to the TabularEditor source. We'd like to be unambiguously in the clear, both for our own re-port and for anyone else who's done similar work.
What would help
Adding either of these to the repository root would resolve the ambiguity:
Either is fine — I have no preference, just looking for any explicit grant.
What we are doing in the meantime
If you want to see the relevant context, the vendor posture is documented at: https://github.com/Olsen-Consulting/JO_PBIMCP/blob/main/core/bpa/vendor/VENDOR_INFO.md
Past similar requests
I checked open + closed issues and didn't find a prior license-clarification thread; happy to be pointed at one if I missed it.
Thanks for considering — totally understand if the answer is "we'll get to it" rather than a same-day fix. Even a one-line response in this thread granting permission would unblock our default-on promotion.
— Jonathan Olsen, Olsen Consulting