[REQ] Fix license file

[MarcoRavich]

Hi there, 1st of all thanks for this awesome work !

Since I've 'doxed' it for the HyMPS project's resources collection (under VIDEO section \ OpenFX page \ API), can you please "fix" the license file for it ?

Although it may sounds like a minor aspect, license file "uncompliance" causes an inconsistent generation of the relative badge too (note - both badges are linked to respective license files):

(badge-generator URL: https://badgen.net/github/license/AcademySoftwareFoundation/openfx)

An example of a GH-compliant one:

(badge-generator URL: https://badgen.net/github/license/Hashory/openfx-modern-template)

It should be pretty simple to "fix" it this using GH's license wizard tool.

Hope that helps !

[john-paulsmith]

Thanks for reporting this. I experimented with a few variations of our existing license and the only way I could get GitHub to recognise that it was actually BSD 3-Clause was by using their exact template. @garyo do you know if there's any reason to keep our changes, such as the header line and the SPDX identifier, which is meant for use in source files, not the license itself? Also, the copyright year is mandatory according to the spec.

You can tell it has matched the license correctly when it shows "BSD-3-Clause license", instead of "License" at the top of the README on the project page.

[MarcoRavich]

Yes, you have to use their template(s) and add own infos (without breaking their format).

However, if you check the differences between your (raw) license file and the example one, the "uncompliance" seems to be generated mainly by first lines...
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AcademySoftwareFoundation/openfx/refs/heads/main/LICENSE.md
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hashory/openfx-modern-template/refs/heads/main/LICENSE

...anyway, if you wanna stay "safe", just delete the current license file and recreate it from scratch using the GH's license wizard tool.

Again, hope that helps.

[garyo]

@garyo do you know if there's any reason to keep our changes, such as the header line and the SPDX identifier, which is meant for use in source files, not the license itself?

Not to my knowledge -- I just went through with a script and updated everything to use the proper SPDX format. I didn't change the content of the LICENSE.md file other than that.

I just make a PR which I hope will fix this, but I don't see the "BSD-3-Clause license", instead of "License" at the top of the README on the project page on my branch. Perhaps it'll show up once it's merged? See PR #195.

[MarcoRavich]

Works now, thanks !