Treat UNLICENSED as special case for comparisons #27
Conversation
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
… confused with "Unlicense")
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #18 .
This issue is due to the fact that
spdx-correctis not giving special treatment to "UNLICENSED", since it is not a SPDX identifier. As per the package maintainer at jslicense/spdx-correct.js#3 (comment) , consumers need to handle this case (which is indeed a part of npm even if not part of SPDX: https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json#license ).(The other special npm case, "SEE LICENSE IN", thankfully doesn't seem to be "corrected" into anything else.)