Explicitly licence under MIT #148
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Before this licence was in the package.json but it wasn't actually in the repo. sveltejs#136 would have added a license but now sveltejs#146 is the future, and that PR clears up the license issue by not including webpack-virtual-modules in-repo, so it doesn't have to affect the LICENSE file.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently the licence name "MIT" is in the
package.jsonbut it there isn't an actual licence in the repo. #136 would have added a license but now #146 is the future, and that PR clears up the license issue by not includingwebpack-virtual-modulesin-repo, so it doesn't have to affect theLICENSEfile.