3 ms·

Your script is a great step in the right direction, but unfortunately, having a file specifically named "LICENSE" is not universal. It's almost as common to see

by jcr 14y ago

Your script is a great step in the right direction, but unfortunately, having a file specifically named "LICENSE" is not universal. It's almost as common to see a file named "COPYING" and plenty of other alternatives are used. More importantly, any license stated in the actual source files supersedes the additional "LICENSE" file. There is also the headaches of binary files like images and similar where verifying the license is just painful. I wish it was as easy as running a script. It would be a good idea if github enforced some convention to make sure the free repo's they provide for open source really are licensed under an OSI approved license.

niggler 14y ago
"It would be a good idea if github enforced some convention to make sure the free repo's they provide for open source really are licensed under an OSI approved license." I wholeheartedly agree. Every once in a while you stumble upon a landmine: https://github.com/stephen-hardy/xlsx.js/issues/8 https://github.com/stephen-hardy/xlsx.js/issues/8
wereHamster 14y ago
I use "UNLICENSE" for projects licensed under that license, as recommended. From http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/: You would traditionally put the above statement into a file named COPYING or LICENSE. However, to explicitly distance yourself from the whole concept of copyright licensing, we recommend that you put your unlicensing statement in a file named UNLICENSE. Doing so also means that your project can more easily be found on e.g. GitHub or Bitbucket, enabling others to reuse your code in their own unencumbered public domain projects.