3 ms·
command-f "license" :-( I do see <https://github.com/thepartly/gatehouse/blob/v0.1.2/Cargo.toml#L5 https://github.com/thepartly/gatehouse/blob/v0.1.2/Cargo.tom
by mdaniel 2y ago
command-f "license" :-(
I do see <https://github.com/thepartly/gatehouse/blob/v0.1.2/Cargo.toml#L5 https://github.com/thepartly/gatehouse/blob/v0.1.2/Cargo.tom...> but my experience with package manager license declaration is that it is almost always "yeah, yeah, default, whatever" versus an explicit choice. They are also invisible to the GitHub license widget, which places the burden upon the user to go spelunking around in the code to know for sure
- rendaw 2y agoDoes cargo have a default license?
- mdaniel 2y agoI guess not? I'm just saying a lot of them do, and inertial is a powerful force that causes many developers to not read ques^h^h^h^hanything $ cargo new --verbose abcabc Creating binary (application) `abcabc` package $ cat abcabc/Cargo.toml [package] name = "abcabc" version = "0.1.0" edition = "2024" [dependencies]
- hardbyte 2y agoI did put licence = "Apache-2.0" in the Cargo.toml but Partly is okay with it being MIT. Update the repo to explicitly add the license text now. Thanks for the call out