Add Apache 2.0 license - #134
Closed
usmansalimLM wants to merge 2 commits into
Closed
Conversation
Adds the canonical Apache License 2.0 text at the repo root and inside the published npm package directory, a NOTICE file with the LikeMinds copyright attribution, and switches the feed-rn-core package.json license field from ISC to Apache-2.0. The LICENSE files are byte-identical to the text published at https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt so that GitHub and automated license scanners detect them correctly. The three sample apps in this repo are marked private and are not published to npm, so their package.json files are left unchanged; they are covered by the root LICENSE. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
NateshR
approved these changes
Aug 14, 2026
Merged
Contributor
Author
|
Superseded by #135. This PR was blocked by the The replacement points at the identical commit ( |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Licenses this repo and
@likeminds.community/feed-rn-coreunder Apache 2.0.Changes
LICENSENOTICElikeminds-feed-reactnative-integration/LICENSElikeminds-feed-reactnative-integration/package.json"license"changed fromISCtoApache-2.0Why two LICENSE files
The root
LICENSEis what GitHub reads to show the repository's license badge. But npm packsonly the files inside
likeminds-feed-reactnative-integration/, so the root file would notreach npm consumers. Both are needed and both are byte-identical. This is standard practice
for a monorepo that publishes a subdirectory.
The three sample apps are intentionally untouched
qna-feed,social-feed, andsocial-feed-expoare all marked"private": trueand declareno license field. They are not published to npm and are covered by the root
LICENSE. Theirpackage.jsonfiles are unchanged.Notes for the reviewer
The LICENSE files are byte-identical to https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
(SHA-256
cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30). Please do notreformat them or fill in the
Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]placeholder in theAppendix — that placeholder is part of the Appendix's instructions, not this repo's copyright
notice. Editing the text makes scanners report "Other" instead of "Apache-2.0". The repo's
copyright notice lives in
NOTICE.The
package.jsonchange matters as much as the LICENSE file. npm consumers' licensescanners read the registry metadata, not this repo. It takes effect on the next published
version only;
1.17.1and earlier keepISCon npm permanently.This is a relicense from ISC to Apache 2.0. Every contributor to this repo appears to be
LikeMinds staff, so this should be an internal decision, but please confirm before merging.
Context: this is one of three
Both dependencies are private. Licensing this repo alone does not make the React Native feed
SDK usable as open source. Companion PRs:
Those two repos must also be made public (a separate decision, not done by any of these PRs).
Flagged, not changed
This repo has no root
README.mdand no README in the published package directory. One wouldnormally carry the License section and explain the monorepo layout. Not added here to avoid
inventing project documentation.