While setting up the publishing process for our rrweb fork, we changed the LICENSE text (#18) to our standard MIT license. This was recently pointed out in https://github.com/rrweb-io/rrweb/issues/1248. While It's worth noting that our fork was also always MIT-licensed, we did changed the copyright, which incorrectly suggested that the repo's code was ours. While I'm not entirely sure what the reason for the change was back then, in hindsight this shouldn't have happened and I'm sorry for causing any confusion associated with this change.
While setting up the publishing process for our
rrwebfork, we changed theLICENSEtext (#18) to our standard MIT license. This was recently pointed out in https://github.com/rrweb-io/rrweb/issues/1248. While It's worth noting that our fork was also always MIT-licensed, we did changed the copyright, which incorrectly suggested that the repo's code was ours. While I'm not entirely sure what the reason for the change was back then, in hindsight this shouldn't have happened and I'm sorry for causing any confusion associated with this change.This PR adjusts the
LICENSEfile to include both, rrweb's original license as well as our license text, which is what we settled on after internal conversations (see https://github.com/getsentry/rrweb/pull/91#issuecomment-1623839222).rendered version: https://github.com/getsentry/rrweb/blob/8fdd4ba84099de6717458e2d7b2e4f610ba634ca/LICENSE