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
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 16, 2020. It is now read-only.
The "licenses" field described in package.md requires the use of license abbreviations when provided. Linking to or including the full list of valid abbreviations would help package.json maintainers. I assume the abbreviations are the ones used on the OSI licenses list. Since the list would also have to be scraped and mirrored for use in the pre-commit package.json validator, perhaps a link to the list that the validator itself uses would be more appropriate, in case it becomes out of sync with the OSI version.
Looking into this more, I think we should not enforce this. We should link to the OSI licenses list and encourage specifying abbreviated names for the type, but I don't think we should require type. It's possible for someone to write a license that isn't named and use it for a plugin. The current requirement for licenses comes from CommonJS; npm doesn't even mention licenses in it's package.json spec.
The "licenses" field described in package.md requires the use of license abbreviations when provided. Linking to or including the full list of valid abbreviations would help package.json maintainers. I assume the abbreviations are the ones used on the OSI licenses list. Since the list would also have to be scraped and mirrored for use in the pre-commit package.json validator, perhaps a link to the list that the validator itself uses would be more appropriate, in case it becomes out of sync with the OSI version.
There was discussion on IRC on #jquery about this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: