Add @swc packages #29644
Add @swc packages #29644
Conversation
|
We discovered some errors in this curation when validating it: 1.11.18 licensed.declared with value "APACHE-2.0" is not normalized. Suggest using "Apache-2.0" |
5 similar comments
|
We discovered some errors in this curation when validating it: 1.11.18 licensed.declared with value "APACHE-2.0" is not normalized. Suggest using "Apache-2.0" |
|
We discovered some errors in this curation when validating it: 1.11.18 licensed.declared with value "APACHE-2.0" is not normalized. Suggest using "Apache-2.0" |
|
We discovered some errors in this curation when validating it: 1.11.18 licensed.declared with value "APACHE-2.0" is not normalized. Suggest using "Apache-2.0" |
|
We discovered some errors in this curation when validating it: 1.11.18 licensed.declared with value "APACHE-2.0" is not normalized. Suggest using "Apache-2.0" |
|
We discovered some errors in this curation when validating it: 1.11.18 licensed.declared with value "APACHE-2.0" is not normalized. Suggest using "Apache-2.0" |
|
@dahiro Thank you for the contribution. Looking at some of these packages, they specifically declare Apache 2.0 and MIT in the package.json. Is this not correct? I looked at the source repo and I do see other package types as Apache but these NPM packages were created with the dual license. |
capfei
added
the
feedback requested
|
Oh, true. In the published packages the license is as you describe. I had a look at ./packages/core/package.json#L8 and ./LICENSE Looks like it is defined here and should not be altered here :-/ We have issues with SPDX-Expressions in the dependency-review-action |
|
I'm going to close this PR since it seems the dual-license is correct for the NPM packages. |
Type: Missing
Summary: npm @swc/core-* packages
Details: Limit to declared Apache-2.0 License
Resolution: License Url: https://github.com/swc-project/swc/blob/main/LICENSE
Description: This is an Apache Maven project under the latest license.
Affected definitions:
1.11.18:
1.11.21:
1.11.22: