Rename 'UNLICENSE' file to 'LICENSE' to comply with convention #44
Conversation
The docs at https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v10/configuring-npm/package-json#files imply that the license file should be called 'LICENSE' or 'LICENCE'. The problem with giving the file another name is that tools like the license-webpack-plugin can't find the license in that case. Potentially breaking if any tools depend on the current filename
|
I appreciate the submission however I will not be merging it. The long standing convention with the "Unlicense" license is to name the file UNLICENSE; consider the "How to apply this license" section at https://choosealicense.com/licenses/unlicense/ . While LICENSE, LICENSE.txt, or LICENSE.md are the convention, it is not the standard, other forms exist such as MIT-LICENSE or GPL-LICENSE which are especially common when a project is under multiple licenses. Based on xz64/license-webpack-plugin#126 it seems that package has trouble handling anything besides explicitly named LICENSE variants so the fix should really be on its end, not with every project that doesn't conform to its strict standard. This project also uses the proper SPDX in the package.json as recommended by npm which the xz64/license-webpack-plugin package should consider as a primary source over any LICENSE file itself in my opinion. Noteworthy to this last point, npm manages to properly identify the license of this package on its site |
|
For what it is worth, other tools have no problem determining the license of this project either such as tmorell/license-compliance $ npm init
$ npm install node-netstat -S
$ npm install license-compliance -D
$ npx license-compliance
Licenses
鈹溾攢 MIT: 39
鈹溾攢 BSD-3-Clause: 6
鈹溾攢 Unlicense: 1
鈹溾攢 0BSD: 1
鈹溾攢 CC-BY-3.0: 1
鈹溾攢 CC0-1.0: 1
鈹溾攢 (MIT AND CC-BY-3.0): 1
鈹溾攢 Python-2.0: 1
鈹斺攢 ISC: 1 |
|
Good point, thanks for clarifying! |
The docs at https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v10/configuring-npm/package-json#files imply that the license file should be called 'LICENSE' or 'LICENCE'.
The problem with giving the file another name is that tools like the license-webpack-plugin can't find the license in that case leading to manual work for the users of that plugin (including me 馃槃).
If there's anything speaking against this, please let me know!
Potentially breaking if any tools depend on the current filename.