Drop License section in readme?

[sindresorhus]

GitHub now shows the license in the repo summary. So there's no longer much value of having it in the readme. npmjs.com already shows the license defined in package.json. And users reading the readme offline can just check the license file.

Thoughts?

[rajikaimal]

Having a separate section for License creates redundant information in the repository. But removing license from the repo can affect for users referring a repo offline. I guess they have created it to have a better view of the repository (a summary) when a user visits a repo on GitHub,

[SamVerschueren]

But removing license from the repo can affect for users referring a repo offline.

The license file will still be present. He is referring to the License section in the readme.md.

I'm not entirely sure about it though. It's also a section that shows the author of the lib. I rather have it like it is now then adding a Author section instead. Not sure, like to see others opinions.

[tHBp]

We don’t detect every open source license, nor complicated situations such as projects with multiple licenses.

Agreed that a user can still go to LICENSE file and read the license information, but a user can read that upfront if that information is still present in readme.

[sindresorhus]

We don’t detect every open source license, nor complicated situations such as projects with multiple licenses.

@tHBp This issue is about mine and my friends repos, which all use the MIT license that is easily detected.

[hhsnopek]

Personally I've always find having the license referenced in the readme is nice when you pull projects down from NPM, easier reference than opening the license itself. It also notifies a user that might otherwise ignore the license completely and possibly misuse the licensed software - I'll be keeping the license referenced in all my projects just as a simple helper

[SEAPUNK]

@hhsnopek The argument being made here is that because the package.json file has a field for the license, you can just figure out the license from there instead of having it be in the README.

[hhsnopek]

@SEAPUNK right, but assume we have an edge case where a project isn't on NPM or has nothing similar to a package.json - you've lost the helper

[SEAPUNK]

Even if the project isn't on NPM, it usually has a package.json file in the repo, for dependencies and such.. unless we're no longer talking about node.js/javascript projects in specific.

[hhsnopek]

Again I'm talking edge cases - but that would be my reference :)

[sindresorhus]

It still has the license defined in package.json and the licence file.

[hhsnopek]

@sindresorhus I think if just having just a license file was sufficient we currently wouldn't have the reference in the readme in any projects, npm based or not 🤔

[sindresorhus]

@hhsnopek I personally only had the Licence section to make it easier for people visiting my repos, but now GitHub shows that information, so I see no need for it.

[hhsnopek]

@sindresorhus considering that, I think you answered your own question 😀

[sindresorhus]

@hhsnopek Yes, I'm aware of my own reasoning. I opened this issue as I'm curious what others think. Maybe they would present some valid use-cases of why it should be kept.

[SEAPUNK]

I don't have any reason to keep the license in the readme, unless the license is a modified Frankenstein that GitHub would not pick up.

[SamVerschueren]

Sindre stated before

This issue is about mine and my friends repos, which all use the MIT license that is easily detected.

[sholladay]

I would keep it, personally.

1. I think it demonstrates that you consider the license important. So many people just plop a license into their project without thinking about it. By specifically calling it out in the README, you help people to recognize the quality of your work.

2. It's probably best not to rely on GitHub too much.

   A. It's buggy, even in your simple case. I can see the license in the repo summary on cat-names but not xo.
   B. It doesn't seem to know what to do with your public domain projects, like guides.

3. I agree with @SamVerschueren:

   It's also a section that shows the author of the lib. I rather have it like it is now then adding a Author section instead.

[sindresorhus]

Ok, I'll leave it. Thanks for the feedback all 🤗

A. It's buggy, even in your simple case. I can see the license in the repo summary on cat-names but not xo.

You should report that to GitHub. They have the exact same license file.

[cuschk]

It's buggy, even in your simple case. I can see the license in the repo summary on cat-names but not xo.

They have the exact same license file.

I played a bit with the license file and found a possible explanation: After launching the feature the license was shown correctly in the status bar. There probably was a change later that requires a year in the license file. When pushing a new license only those containing a year will be identified and shown.

A license file starting with the following lines works fine for me:

The MIT License (MIT)

Copyright (c) 2016 My Name <my.name@example.com> (example.com)