Adopt MIT License - #4
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 7cf4011de2
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy | ||
| of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal | ||
| in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights | ||
| to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell | ||
| copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is | ||
| furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Exclude support.js from the MIT grant
Because the repository still includes and serves public/support.js, while THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md now says that file is excluded from the MIT grant and no license is granted for it, this unconditional top-level grant over “this software” leaves source-archive/package consumers with contradictory license terms. Add the support.js exception to the operative LICENSE text itself, or otherwise narrow this grant to project-authored files, so the stated exclusion is enforceable where readers and scanners rely on the root license.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Summary
dc-runtimeexport, which shipped without a separate licence, from the MIT grantScope
This changes five licensing/documentation files only. The commit is based directly on the public repository's root commit and contains no private source history.
Verification
UNLICENSED/ all-rights-reserved wording scan: clean