chore: update licenses #149
Conversation
| @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ ALLOWED_LICENSES=( | |||
| 'Apache-2.0' | |||
| 'Apache License, Version 2.0' | |||
| 'Apache*' | |||
| 'Artistic-2.0' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like this is used by npm already, which we obviously use and also distribute (via docker images) extensively, so this should be fine.
| @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ ALLOWED_LICENSES=( | |||
| 'Apache-2.0' | |||
| 'Apache License, Version 2.0' | |||
| 'Apache*' | |||
| 'Artistic-2.0' | |||
| 'BlueOak-1.0.0' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems like this is fine, because it is intended as an easier to read alternative to MIT: https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0
And looking at the dependencies, it looks like it would be pretty hard to remove the affected packages.
| 'LGPL-2.1' # LGPL allows commercial use, requires only that modifications to LGPL-protected libraries are published under a GPL-compatible license | ||
| 'MIT' | ||
| 'MIT*' | ||
| 'MIT-0' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removes attribution from MIT: https://github.com/aws/mit-0
| 'LGPL-2.1' # LGPL allows commercial use, requires only that modifications to LGPL-protected libraries are published under a GPL-compatible license | ||
| 'MIT' | ||
| 'MIT*' | ||
| 'MIT-0' | ||
| 'MIT AND ISC' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since both MIT and ISC are fine, these should be fine, too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Jonas did the work. I just quickly reviewed the licenses, and it looks good.
New licenses: