Closed jeffpaul closed 3 years ago
See MIT as current license in repo: https://github.com/10up/Engineering-Best-Practices/blob/gh-pages/LICENSE.md
I noticed that we incorrectly list ISC as the license in the package.json file whereas MIT is the actual license in the report: https://github.com/10up/Engineering-Best-Practices/blob/gh-pages/LICENSE.md. This PR corrects the package.json file to reference MIT.
ISC
package.json
MIT
n/a
Ensures we correctly represent the licensing for this work.
None identified unless someone purposely only utilizes these best practices because it was "licensed" ISC on Packagist? Seems unlikely, but I suppose a possible drawback.
Manually verified via the GitHub Desktop UI.
See MIT as current license in repo: https://github.com/10up/Engineering-Best-Practices/blob/gh-pages/LICENSE.md
Description of the Change
I noticed that we incorrectly list
ISCas the license in thepackage.jsonfile whereas MIT is the actual license in the report: https://github.com/10up/Engineering-Best-Practices/blob/gh-pages/LICENSE.md. This PR corrects thepackage.jsonfile to referenceMIT.Alternate Designs
n/a
Benefits
Ensures we correctly represent the licensing for this work.
Possible Drawbacks
None identified unless someone purposely only utilizes these best practices because it was "licensed" ISC on Packagist? Seems unlikely, but I suppose a possible drawback.
Verification Process
Manually verified via the GitHub Desktop UI.
Checklist:
Applicable Issues
n/a
Changelog Entry
n/a