Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
Include LICENSE file in javascript package.
See original GitHub issue🚀 Feature
Please include a LICENSE file in the distributed javascript package.
Motivation
Many automated license management tools expect this file to be present. If the file is not present, it requires manual intervention to find the license and add it.
Additional context
While we are on the subject, since the distributed javascript package contains a compiled version of the CPython runtime, shouldn’t the license field of package.json be "(Apache-2.0 AND PSF-2.0)"? And therefore the proposed LICENSE file would include all relevant licenses.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created a year ago
- Comments:14 (14 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
Also, also, this repository uses the MPL-2.0 license at the top level, so is the Apache-2.0 license listed in package.json wrong?
Interestingly minified Javascript is not considered source code according to the MPL license but an executable. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/ (Q16). Still I think we should ask for advice from people specialized in this before making any changes, as it does have serious implications.
In particular, I’m not even sure that if this npm package is labeled as MPL 2, Pyscript can use the npm package and output unminified bundle https://pyscript.net/latest/pyscript.js under the Apache 2 license, as they are doing currently. I’ll ask them to see what they think about this.