Finding
Dioptron's public license claims contradict the license artifacts on current main.
Evidence
LICENSE:1 is PolyForm Noncommercial 1.0.0.LICENSE-DOCS:1-8 is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0.README.md:37-39 instead claims the project is AGPL-3.0-or-later..kanon-ci.toml:1-3 repeats spdx: AGPL-3.0-or-later.NOTICE:3-4,20-22 says LICENSE contains AGPL and presents its supplemental restriction as attached to AGPL, but that artifact is PolyForm Noncommercial.
These are mutually exclusive public statements about the terms under which the repository is offered. The same stale blanket-AGPL premise also reached Kanon planning and is separately routed to the Kanon owner.
Desired correction
Establish one explicit scoped license map and derive every public claim from it:
- code, tooling, workflows, and repository configuration use the root PolyForm Noncommercial artifact;
- authored documentation uses
LICENSE-DOCS under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0;
- README, NOTICE, and CI metadata name those actual artifacts and scopes;
- remove or replace the false AGPL supplemental-notice construction rather than layering prose restrictions over a license the repository does not contain;
- add a deterministic repository check that reads both artifacts and fails when public scope claims drift.
Do not treat dependency-license allowances as project-license declarations.
Done when: no current project surface claims blanket AGPL, the scoped map is unambiguous, the notice matches the actual artifacts, and required CI executes a negative-tested drift check.
Finding
Dioptron's public license claims contradict the license artifacts on current main.
Evidence
LICENSE:1is PolyForm Noncommercial 1.0.0.LICENSE-DOCS:1-8is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0.README.md:37-39instead claims the project isAGPL-3.0-or-later..kanon-ci.toml:1-3repeatsspdx: AGPL-3.0-or-later.NOTICE:3-4,20-22saysLICENSEcontains AGPL and presents its supplemental restriction as attached to AGPL, but that artifact is PolyForm Noncommercial.These are mutually exclusive public statements about the terms under which the repository is offered. The same stale blanket-AGPL premise also reached Kanon planning and is separately routed to the Kanon owner.
Desired correction
Establish one explicit scoped license map and derive every public claim from it:
LICENSE-DOCSunder CC BY-NC-ND 4.0;Do not treat dependency-license allowances as project-license declarations.
Done when: no current project surface claims blanket AGPL, the scoped map is unambiguous, the notice matches the actual artifacts, and required CI executes a negative-tested drift check.