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

Change license in package.json #1140

Closed
KiwiKilian opened this issue Oct 11, 2024 · 6 comments · Fixed by #1145
Closed

Change license in package.json #1140

KiwiKilian opened this issue Oct 11, 2024 · 6 comments · Fixed by #1145
Labels
bug 🔥 Something isn't working prioritized 🚚 This issue has been prioritized and will be worked on soon

Comments

@KiwiKilian
Copy link

Description

The new license should be reflected within package.json like this:

"license": "FSL-1.1-MIT",

This is important for automated license checking to work.

Reproducible example or configuration

No response

OpenAPI specification (optional)

No response

System information (optional)

No response

@KiwiKilian KiwiKilian added the bug 🔥 Something isn't working label Oct 11, 2024
@mrlubos mrlubos added the prioritized 🚚 This issue has been prioritized and will be worked on soon label Oct 11, 2024
@mrlubos
Copy link
Member

mrlubos commented Oct 11, 2024

Ah yeah, thanks for catching @KiwiKilian. Which tools do you use to check for license automatically?

@KiwiKilian
Copy link
Author

@KiwiKilian
Copy link
Author

Also see #1141 as slightly related.

@mrlubos
Copy link
Member

mrlubos commented Oct 11, 2024

Going to release an update with the changes we discussed, thanks for the feedback! I noticed the FSL license doesn't have a SPDX license identifier which npm docs mention should use SEE LICENSE IN <filename>. I kept it as you proposed, let me know if your tooling works with that change or I need to update to the npm suggestion please

@KiwiKilian
Copy link
Author

KiwiKilian commented Oct 12, 2024

I think it's fine, as it's the current proposed SPDX identifier, see spdx/license-list-XML#2458.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration!

@mrlubos
Copy link
Member

mrlubos commented Oct 12, 2024

Thanks for including the thread, I enjoyed the discussion and further threads linked there. I think it's fair to add a license section on the website to explain the choice. Hopefully the adoption doesn't become problematic as a result of this change

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug 🔥 Something isn't working prioritized 🚚 This issue has been prioritized and will be worked on soon
Projects
None yet
2 participants