Repository navigation
docs: correct README licence to MIT - #15
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The README said GPL-3.0 while LICENSE, Directory.Build.props and every csproj declare MIT, so the packaged README contradicted the package metadata it shipped alongside. A licence review before adoption would stall on the discrepancy. MIT is the real licence — the switch happened in feature/switch-to-mit-license, which updated LICENSE and the package metadata but missed this line.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
One word. The README said GPL-3.0;
LICENSE,Directory.Build.propsand every csproj say MIT.Since the README is packed into each NuGet package (
<PackageReadmeFile>), the shipped README contradicted thelicenseExpressionin the same.nupkg. Anyone running a licence review before adopting CacheWeave hits that and stops — which is exactly what prompted the report.MIT is the real licence. The switch happened in
feature/switch-to-mit-license, which updatedLICENSEand the package metadata but missed this line.No code change; the suite (221 tests on net8.0/9.0/10.0) passes unchanged.