Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

The license not reflected correctly on npmjs.com #772

Closed
KitoHo opened this issue Feb 19, 2025 · 2 comments · Fixed by #773
Closed

The license not reflected correctly on npmjs.com #772

KitoHo opened this issue Feb 19, 2025 · 2 comments · Fixed by #773

Comments

@KitoHo
Copy link
Contributor

KitoHo commented Feb 19, 2025

v9.3.1...@react-native-documents/picker@10.1.0

I have identified an issue where the License field for the @react-native-documents/picker@10.x.x package on npmjs.com is displaying see LICENSE file instead of the expected MIT. Upon comparison with other packages on npmjs.com, it is evident that the MIT license should be displayed correctly for this package.

Observations:
Package: @react-native-documents/picker@10.x.x
Current License Displayed: see LICENSE file
Expected License: MIT

Investigation:
Upon further investigation, I noticed that the LICENSE.md file in the 10.x.x tag branch has been modified in a recent commit. This change might be related to the discrepancy in the displayed license information on npmjs.com.

Request for Review:
I kindly request a review of the recent changes made to the LICENSE.md file in the 10.x.x tag branch to ensure that the correct MIT license information is reflected for the @react-native-documents/picker package on npmjs.com.

@vonovak
Copy link
Member

vonovak commented Feb 19, 2025

Hello and thanks for asking,
please open a PR that fixes this and I'll merge it

Thank you 🙂

@KitoHo
Copy link
Contributor Author

KitoHo commented Feb 20, 2025

Thanks for reply.
I created the PR in #773

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants