MIT License in package.json differs from that in the LICENSE file.

[RichLewis007]

I wanted to point out a discrepancy I noticed:

The package.json file lists the MIT License, and so the GitHub repo shows the MIT License in the About column. But the LICENSE file in the root of the repo describes a straight copyright.

Since the PRO components must have a different license from the Free Open Source components, how might this split license be documented?

Clarity will be helpful for those of us using both sets of components in different projects for which we have to define or conform to their own licenses.

Thanks!
Rich

[claviska]

We include the licenses on our website:

• Web Awesome [free] is offered under the MIT license: https://webawesome.com/license
• Web Awesome Pro is offered under a commercial license: https://webawesome.com/license/pro

The MIT license is included in the monorepo because that's what's publicly visible. It doesn't apply to non-free assets which are not publicly visible.

[RichLewis007]

OK, thanks for the reply. Do you think you'll replace the LICENSE in the repo with the MIT license, to make it super clear to GitHub coders?

[claviska]

The root of the Web Awesome repo has this license file, which is MIT:

https://github.com/shoelace-style/webawesome/blob/next/LICENSE.md

Can you link me to the license file you're referring to?

[RichLewis007]

I'm so sorry, I thought I recognized a difference from the standard MIT license used on GitHub, but I see this is indeed the MIT license.

I think what triggered. My question was that it didn't say "MIT License" at the top of the license file. I've been adding this license to my projects and I'm used to seeing that at the top. It's valid either way, I suspect.

Here's the example people are given when understanding how to add the MIT license to their GitHub repo, and it says that text at the top.

https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/

No big deal. Though adding that one line might make it clearer which license the text details, when the file is viewed in circumstances under which GitHub itself doesn't put a giant card above the license file proclaiming that it is the MIT license! lol! I was viewing the file locally and didn't have that assistance.

Sorry to take up your time. I appreciate your good work!

• Rich