Closed ljani closed 7 years ago
The original intent was to help users remember to include the licence as required by Apache licence distribution requirement 4b: "You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; "
But I agree (an have stumbled on this myself) that adding the license file with that plain name "License" is undesirable and may conflict with your own work & licensing. Alternatives would be to either:
The first option is not wrong but requires extra steps from users. The latter may be useful but can also be a nuisance if the proposed location/name does not fit your plans for license inclusion..
I lean a bit toward preferring the "do nothing" option for next release.
Why not to use this:
Element | Description |
---|---|
requireLicenseAcceptance | A Boolean value that specifies whether the client needs to ensure that the package license (described by licenseUrl) is accepted before the package is installed. |
EDIT: oh, right, sorry, now I understand your the point of actually adding the file to the project.
The decision is to NOT add this file at all and let users remember themselves to look up and include the license. Will be available soon in v0.10.0 first prerelease version.
The current NuGet package creates a
LICENSE.txt
in the root of my own project. I'd prefer if you didn't relicense my project when I add this library through NuGet.