docs: rename LICENSE.md to THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md - #7
Merged
Conversation
Two files both called LICENSE-something, both opening with the full ISC text, read as rival copies of the same licence. That was my error when adding LICENSE for GitHub's detector. LICENSE.md could not simply be deleted: it carries the Lua and LuaFileSystem MIT notices, and MIT requires those to travel with any copy of the code. So the fix is to stop duplicating rather than to remove. LICENSE is now the single statement of this project's licence, and THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md holds only the vendored notices, with the duplicated ISC text dropped. Also writes out LuaFileSystem's MIT terms in full instead of saying 'on the same terms as above', which stopped being true once the ISC block above it was removed. Updates the files allowlist, the release tarball guard and the README. Verified: 67 files, LICENSE and THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md both present, LICENSE.md gone. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
mschmicking
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 8, 2026
Two files both called LICENSE-something, both opening with the full ISC text, read as rival copies of the same licence. That was my error when adding LICENSE for GitHub's detector. LICENSE.md could not simply be deleted: it carries the Lua and LuaFileSystem MIT notices, and MIT requires those to travel with any copy of the code. So the fix is to stop duplicating rather than to remove. LICENSE is now the single statement of this project's licence, and THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md holds only the vendored notices, with the duplicated ISC text dropped. Also writes out LuaFileSystem's MIT terms in full instead of saying 'on the same terms as above', which stopped being true once the ISC block above it was removed. Updates the files allowlist, the release tarball guard and the README. Verified: 67 files, LICENSE and THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md both present, LICENSE.md gone. Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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
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.
You spotted two licence files. You were right that something was wrong, though the fix is not deletion.
Why not just delete one
LICENSE.mdcarries the Lua and LuaFileSystem MIT notices. MIT requires those notices to ship with any copy of the code, and this package compiles both into the addon. Deleting the file would be a licence violation, not a tidy-up.The actual mistake
Mine, when I added
LICENSEso GitHub's detector could read it: I left the full ISC text in both files. Two files named LICENSE-something, both opening with the same licence, look like rival copies and invite exactly the question you asked.The fix
LICENSE— the single, canonical statement of this project's licence. Unchanged, still detected as ISC.LICENSE.md→THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md, with the duplicated ISC text removed. It now holds only the vendored notices, and the name says what it is.Also writes LuaFileSystem's MIT terms out in full. It previously said "on the same terms as above", which referred to the ISC block — that stopped being true the moment the ISC text was removed, so it needed spelling out.
Verified
All references updated:
filesallowlist, the release tarball guard, and the README. NoLICENSE.mdreferences remain anywhere.🤖 Generated with Claude Code