feat: license the repository under Apache-2.0 - #98
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The repo had no LICENSE file at all while its README advertised one ("See
LICENSE for license details") — a broken link on a public repository.
Adds the licence in the org's established REUSE layout, copied verbatim from
owncloud/actions so the three infra repos stay consistent (actions,
ocis-workflows and ocis-mcp-server are already Apache-2.0):
LICENSE full Apache-2.0 text, byte-identical to actions'
LICENSES/Apache-2.0.txt same text, as REUSE requires
REUSE.toml identical to actions' apart from package name + URL
Apache-2.0 also settles contribution terms on its own: §5 Submission of
Contributions licenses inbound contributions under the same terms, which is why
this repo is exempt from the license/cla status check (owncloud/admin#268) and was
dropped from the CLA rollout in owncloud/admin#264.
phil-davis
approved these changes
Sep 14, 2026
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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Why
owncloud/reusable-workflowscurrently has no LICENSE file — GitHub reports itslicence as
NONE— while its own README already says "See LICENSE forlicense details" and carries a
License: See Repositorybadge. That link is brokentoday, so a public repo is advertising terms it does not state.
What
Adds the licence in the org's established REUSE layout, copied verbatim from
owncloud/actionsso the infra repos stayconsistent —
actions,ocis-workflowsandocis-mcp-serverare already Apache-2.0:LICENSEactions' (11388 bytes)LICENSES/Apache-2.0.txtREUSE.tomlactions' exceptSPDX-PackageNameandSPDX-PackageDownloadLocationCopyright line matches the org standard:
2026 ownCloud GmbH - A Kiteworks Company and ownCloud contributors, supplierospo@kiteworks.com.Nothing else is touched — no code, no workflows.
Relationship to the CLA rollout
Apache-2.0 §5 Submission of Contributions already licenses inbound contributions
under the same terms as the project (inbound=outbound), which is precisely what a CLA
exists to establish. On that basis this repo is exempt from the
license/clastatuscheck and was dropped from the CLA rollout:
Worth noting the ordering: #268 argues the exemption on Apache-2.0 grounds while
this repo is not yet Apache-2.0. This PR closes that gap, so it makes sense to land
this before (or together with) #268.
Follow-up not included
The README's
License: See Repositorybadge could now readApache-2.0. Left out tokeep this diff to licensing only — those OSPO badges are managed as part of the
community-health rollout.