search

conventional-changelog / conventional-changelog

Generate changelogs and release notes from a project's commit messages and metadata.
ISC License
7.65k stars 716 forks source link

Please add a LICENSE file #286

Closed jaredsmith closed 6 years ago

jaredsmith commented 6 years ago

Please add a LICENSE file -- The MIT license specifically states that the text of the license must accompany the source code.

blaineadams commented 6 years ago

I agree. In my environment we cannot use this package without a license file in the repository.

bajtos commented 6 years ago

FWIW, monorepo's root package.json says the license is ISC:

https://github.com/conventional-changelog/conventional-changelog/blob/35e60b5be6027fb2784c5103eee111f6f99b045e/package.json#L21

hutson commented 6 years ago

Some packages are under the ISC license, while others are under the MIT license.

The root package.json is under the ISC, though that was setup automatically when this repository was converted to a mono-repo, and that particular license from that particular package.json file doesn't apply to any published package because the root package.json isn't published.

hutson commented 6 years ago

My understanding is that ISC and MIT are functionally equivalent, so it may be worth looking into whether we can consolidate around a single license.

bajtos commented 6 years ago

it may be worth looking into whether we can consolidate around a single license.

That would be great!

Some packages are under the ISC license, while others are under the MIT license.

As far as I am concerned, having different licenses in different packages is fine. The issue I see is that some packages don't contain any LICENSE file, see e.g. packages/conventional-commits-parser.

IMO, the first (and easy) step is to ensure every package has a LICENSE files matching the license entry in its package.json file.

hutson commented 6 years ago

IMO, the first (and easy) step is to ensure every package has a LICENSE files matching the license entry in its package.json file.

Agreed, along with the fact that it's just the right thing to do.

I think right now we're waiting on an update to #287

hutson commented 6 years ago

I have not seen any progress on #287.

Would someone be available to submit another pull request containing a LICENSE file in each package within the conventional-changelog mono-repository?

jaredsmith commented 6 years ago

I'll try to get to this today or tomorrow. It fell off my radar.

hutson commented 6 years ago

I'll try to get to this today or tomorrow.

Thank you @jaredsmith! I've re-assigned the issue to you.

jaredsmith commented 6 years ago

Pull request #287 has been updated.

hutson commented 6 years ago

Thanks to the work from @jaredsmith we have successfully published the following packages with new LICENSE files:

@bajtos and @blaineadams License issues should now be addressed. Please let us know if there are any other License related issues following these releases.