You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Many projects ship with a LICENSE file, detailing the terms of the license for that project. This will often be the same as the license specified in package.json, but:
The LICENSE may not be the same as the one in package.json
The LICENSE file may exist, but the license attribute in package.json may not
The license attribute may exist, but the LICENSE file may not
Describe the solution you'd like
Per stated issues above:
The LICENSE may not be the same as the one in package.json
This should be flagged as an error in the console for esnecil list. Having two stated licenses should require manual intervention.
The LICENSE file may exist, but the license attribute in package.json may not
In this case, state that the tool has parsed the LICENSE file and use this data to inform data as usual. If both are missing, assume NO_LICENSE.
The license attribute may exist, but the LICENSE file may not
This is fine, we can ignore this case.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Not doing this: a risk, for reasons stated above
Additional context
LICENSE files aren't standardised, unsure of approach
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Many projects ship with a LICENSE file, detailing the terms of the license for that project. This will often be the same as the license specified in
package.json
, but:package.json
license
attribute inpackage.json
may notlicense
attribute may exist, but theLICENSE
file may notDescribe the solution you'd like
Per stated issues above:
package.json
This should be flagged as an error in the console for
esnecil list
. Having two stated licenses should require manual intervention.license
attribute inpackage.json
may notIn this case, state that the tool has parsed the LICENSE file and use this data to inform data as usual. If both are missing, assume
NO_LICENSE
.license
attribute may exist, but theLICENSE
file may notThis is fine, we can ignore this case.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Not doing this: a risk, for reasons stated above
Additional context
LICENSE files aren't standardised, unsure of approach
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: