8000 Add license MIT · Pull Request #93 · vercel/next.js · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

Add license MIT #93

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 6 commits into from Oct 29, 2016
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Next Next commit
Add license MIT
  • Loading branch information
giang nguyen committed Oct 26, 2016
commit a6e5a2a9eae70c6f99e5a4b40bfcee6093252f58
21 changes: 21 additions & 0 deletions LICENSE.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
The MIT License (MIT)

Copyright (c) 2016 netx.js developers
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

typo in the word next

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice find @jamo , i fix that.


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:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions README.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -378,3 +378,7 @@ The following issues are currently being explored and input from the community i
- Tony Kovanen ([@tonykovanen](https://twitter.com/tonykovanen)) – ▲ZEIT
- Guillermo Rauch ([@rauchg](https://twitter.com/rauchg)) – ▲ZEIT
- Dan Zajdband ([@impronunciable](https://twitter.com/impronunciable)) – Knight-Mozilla / Coral Project

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why this \n?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Default README.md has \n

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you remove it since it's not related to license ?
And please squash all commits to one.

## License

MIT
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On Hyper, Zeit wanted to omit the this License section from README and set the license in the repo settings so it shows like this:
image

Someone with the needed rights needs to add that, so we can omit it from README.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LICENSE file is explicit and git hosting agnostic

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@iamstarkov yeah, I agree the LICENSE file should be in the repo, but I think we don't need it added to the README.

BTW, the license is also declared in package.json

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

got it.

though, it might seems a bit redundant, but its kind of standard of to declare license type in the pkg and in the end of README file, and specify full license text in LICENSE.
Im not suggesting to add License section to README, rather pointing out how convenient it is

0