Is this post about Github seemingly detecting an incorrect licence? The project was relicenced in a later commit, so I dont think this behavior is entirely wrong.
Plus, the license was only changed on a secondary branch. The default branch still has the MIT license. The text at the top isn’t “this is the license file you have open” it’s “the repo is licensed under this” so it’s correct behavior but bad UX. It would be most user-friendly to show repo license and then also say “this branch has an invalid license, beware shenanigans”
I didn’t even realize that! Their official distribution page links to the “secondary branch”, which is actually an outdated tag branch. The license was changed a month ago.
IMO it should be re-recognizing it every time the license file is changed, but only showing a “click here to learn more about different licenses” would also be much better
Is this post about Github seemingly detecting an incorrect licence? The project was relicenced in a later commit, so I dont think this behavior is entirely wrong.
Plus, the license was only changed on a secondary branch. The default branch still has the MIT license. The text at the top isn’t “this is the license file you have open” it’s “the repo is licensed under this” so it’s correct behavior but bad UX. It would be most user-friendly to show repo license and then also say “this branch has an invalid license, beware shenanigans”
I didn’t even realize that! Their official distribution page links to the “secondary branch”, which is actually an outdated tag branch. The license was changed a month ago.
that’s why it’s wrong
What should it do instead? I think the only reasonable action would be not showing it if the licence file was changed.
IMO it should be re-recognizing it every time the license file is changed, but only showing a “click here to learn more about different licenses” would also be much better