package metadata should match the license file #154
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
|
Related: #153 |
|
The package declaration imo is correct, not the license file. |
|
I suspect it is a mess to land a fix. We might need agreement from all previous contributors, and a major version release to change the licence. I am a contributor, and I don't mind which licence we use. I prefer MIT as shorter and I think more common for npm packages. |
|
We don’t need a major version if we’re not changing the license field, because that’s the only thing tools look at. We may indeed want to confirm that contributors werent confused by the incorrect license file, though. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
which license is correct, in package.json or LICENSE?