Hi — OGL declares Unlicense in package.json (since 0.0.72, context in #97), and the README carries the full Unlicense text. The intent is clearly public domain.
One small gap remains: with no LICENSE/UNLICENSE file in the repo or the npm tarball, GitHub's licence detection reports "no license", and automated compliance scanners (the same class of tooling as in #97) flag the package as unlicensed. For teams using OGL in commercial/client work, that flag forces a manual legal review every time, even though the actual terms couldn't be more permissive.
Would you take a PR adding an UNLICENSE file with the standard text from https://unlicense.org, included in the npm files list? It changes nothing about your licensing — it just makes the existing dedication machine-readable. Happy to open that PR if so. Thanks for OGL!
Hi — OGL declares
Unlicensein package.json (since 0.0.72, context in #97), and the README carries the full Unlicense text. The intent is clearly public domain.One small gap remains: with no LICENSE/UNLICENSE file in the repo or the npm tarball, GitHub's licence detection reports "no license", and automated compliance scanners (the same class of tooling as in #97) flag the package as unlicensed. For teams using OGL in commercial/client work, that flag forces a manual legal review every time, even though the actual terms couldn't be more permissive.
Would you take a PR adding an
UNLICENSEfile with the standard text from https://unlicense.org, included in the npmfileslist? It changes nothing about your licensing — it just makes the existing dedication machine-readable. Happy to open that PR if so. Thanks for OGL!