Clarify copyright license (MIT vs. ISC) #7936
Unanswered
timothyg-stripe
asked this question in
Q&A
Replies: 1 comment
-
Indeed, the packages should be MIT license. Will remedy this soon. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
What happened?
I think the intention is for this project to have a MIT license (as is the case in https://github.com/danny-avila/LibreChat/blob/0103b4b08a6ee1339569d7d4af16beaaac0228ed/LICENSE). However, there are numerous places in the codebase that declare the project to have an ISC license instead: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Adanny-avila%2FLibreChat+%2F%5CbISC%5Cb%2F&type=code
This shows up incorrect on, e.g., https://www.npmjs.com/package/librechat-data-provider.
Version Information
HEAD
Steps to Reproduce
See above
What browsers are you seeing the problem on?
No response
Relevant log output
Screenshots
https://www.npmjs.com/package/librechat-data-provider currently shows:
Code of Conduct
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions