You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The license field of package.json is MIT, but Apache-2.0 is defined in the LICENSE file.
Now this usually wouldn't matter, since the licenses are similar (for the most part). But tools like pnpm-licenses partially misinterpret the license to be MIT.
I don't know how much of a legal issue this is, since I've found packages like through that use both. But it just seems like sloppy to me.
Example:
Create a new npm project
Install pnpm
Run pnpm i @pkgjs/parseargs
Run npx pnpm-licenses list -o ./licenses.json
View the licenses.json file.
Result:
[
{
"name": "@pkgjs/parseargs",
"license": "MIT", // Incorrect"author": "",
"homepage": "https://github.com/pkgjs/parseargs#readme",
"description": "Polyfill of future proposal for `util.parseArgs()`",
"version": "0.11.0",
"licenseText": "Apache License\n Version 2.0, January 2004... You get the idea"// Correct
}
]
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
That looks like an error in the initial commits. I looked at some other packages under https://github.com/pkgjs and they have Apache license file and "license": "Apache-2.0".
The license field of
package.json
isMIT
, butApache-2.0
is defined in theLICENSE
file.Now this usually wouldn't matter, since the licenses are similar (for the most part). But tools like pnpm-licenses partially misinterpret the license to be MIT.
I don't know how much of a legal issue this is, since I've found packages like through that use both. But it just seems like sloppy to me.
Example:
pnpm i @pkgjs/parseargs
npx pnpm-licenses list -o ./licenses.json
licenses.json
file.Result:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: