Jblanco Fix license classifier patch 01 #59
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
The commentjson component is flagged as “No License.” This appears to result from missing or incomplete metadata provided by the publisher. While the PyPI page references an MIT license file in the README, it is not declared in a programmatically consumable way. The publisher’s intent to license under MIT seems clear, but the packaging does not properly expose this information.
jecsanb
force-pushed
the
jblanc-patch-01
branch
from
a3a6f55 to
574c4fd
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hi maintainers, thank you for the project! I noticed the source repository includes a clear LICENSE file, but the published package does not expose license metadata in its manifest. Some registries and compliance tools rely on that field, so the package shows up as “license unknown.” Would you be open to a small change to reference the license in the package configuration? This does not change the project license, just surfaces the existing license in metadata. Thanks again!