Hi — we're building a downstream deployment of Tailchat and noticed a small licensing inconsistency we'd like to clarify.
The repository README, root LICENSE, root package.json, and client/web/package.json identify Tailchat as Apache-2.0, but client/shared/package.json still contains:
Looking through the history, shared/package.json appears to have received the same GPLv3 field as the other workspace packages when it was created in 2021. In August 2022, the repository LICENSE was changed from GPLv3 to Apache-2.0, and the enclosing client/root package metadata was subsequently changed to Apache-2.0, while the shared manifest appears to have remained unchanged.
Could you please clarify the intended license for the code under client/shared in current Tailchat releases?
Specifically, is client/shared intended to be covered by the repository's Apache-2.0 license, with the GPLv3 package field being a leftover from the earlier project license, or is that package intentionally licensed separately under GPLv3?
Thanks very much for the clarification.
Hi — we're building a downstream deployment of Tailchat and noticed a small licensing inconsistency we'd like to clarify.
The repository README, root
LICENSE, rootpackage.json, andclient/web/package.jsonidentify Tailchat as Apache-2.0, butclient/shared/package.jsonstill contains:Looking through the history,
shared/package.jsonappears to have received the same GPLv3 field as the other workspace packages when it was created in 2021. In August 2022, the repositoryLICENSEwas changed from GPLv3 to Apache-2.0, and the enclosing client/root package metadata was subsequently changed to Apache-2.0, while the shared manifest appears to have remained unchanged.Could you please clarify the intended license for the code under
client/sharedin current Tailchat releases?Specifically, is
client/sharedintended to be covered by the repository's Apache-2.0 license, with the GPLv3 package field being a leftover from the earlier project license, or is that package intentionally licensed separately under GPLv3?Thanks very much for the clarification.