Use the correct SPDX license identifier #128
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The license field in package.json should use a SPDX identifier for the license. https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json#license "Apache 2.0" isn't quiet right according to https://spdx.org/licenses/ This breaks license checks plugins that do rather strict matching of the id. The project root also contains a copy of the MIT license in LICENSE.md. Shouldn't that be Apache 2.0 as well?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The license field in package.json should use a SPDX identifier for the license. https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json#license
"Apache 2.0" isn't quiet right according to https://spdx.org/licenses/
This breaks license checks plugins that do rather strict matching of the id.
The project root also contains a copy of the MIT license in LICENSE.md. Shouldn't that be Apache 2.0 as well?