Add a LICENSE file so that lawyers can be happy

[chrisjshull]

Contributor

• no tests required for this PR.

Committer

In most cases, this should be a different person than the contributor.

• Draft GitHub release notes have been updated.
• CI is green (no forced merge required).
• Merge PR

[styfle]

Hi Chris, this looks like a duplicate of #1343

[chrisjshull]

Hmm. docs/ is excluded from npm by .npmignore, so it is not being distributed.
Also, automated tools expect LICENSE to be in a consistent place.

[joshbruce]

Maybe we should figure something out about this license thing. The fact that two people have submitted PRs to make the structure more like that commonly found on GitHub makes me think there's a UX goal we're missing.

[styfle]

Agreed. Let's move the file back instead of creating a new file. That way git log will follow the history.

@chrisjshull Would you like to create a new PR?

[chrisjshull]

Don't actually have this checked out, just did in the GH UI, but not seeing the option to move.
Can someone else?

[Martii]

@joshbruce

Paralegal in the house! ;)

Maybe we should figure something out about this license thing.

LICENSE can be specific to GH to show in a web browser immediately what the licensing is and the file itself is used for checkouts as common practice with OSS. It's quite picky with dual/double licensing but single licensing works well.

The type of license should be the same reference as by it's SPDX short name at /markedjs/marked/blob/4dce02d/package.json#L14 which is npm specific.

These are usually the first two places we look when adopting a package. :)

Ref:

• /markedjs/marked/blob/4dce02d/docs/LICENSE.md (current location of LICENSE.md)

[Martii]

@chrisjshull

Clone your fork of this repo and then checkout the branch at https://github.com/chrisjshull/marked/tree/patch-1 ... then you can undo ( git rm source) and move using git mv source target and then push to this PR/branch.

[styfle]

I went ahead and made PR #1356