Skip to content

docs: use verbatim Apache-2.0 license text#634

Open
dan2k3k4 wants to merge 2 commits into
devfrom
fix/canonical-apache-license
Open

docs: use verbatim Apache-2.0 license text#634
dan2k3k4 wants to merge 2 commits into
devfrom
fix/canonical-apache-license

Conversation

@dan2k3k4

@dan2k3k4 dan2k3k4 commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Problem

LICENSE contained a paraphrased and truncated copy of the Apache License 2.0 rather than the canonical text:

  • 1247 words vs 1581 in the canonical text
  • The entire APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work section was missing
  • Clauses were dropped mid-sentence, e.g. §8 was missing "whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise" and §9 was missing "consistent with this License"

GitHub's license detection (licensee) matches by fuzzy hash, so it could not identify the license and reported the repo as NOASSERTION / "Other":

$ gh api repos/amazeeio/amazee.ai --jq .license
{"key":"other","name":"Other","spdx_id":"NOASSERTION"}

That blocks anything keyed off an OSI-approved license being detected — including our free Greptile reviews.

Change

Replaced LICENSE with the canonical Apache-2.0 text verbatim (gh api /licenses/apache-2.0). No change to the licensing intent — the file already said Apache-2.0, it just wasn't a faithful copy.

The APPENDIX copyright line is left as the standard Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner] placeholder, which is how most Apache-2.0 repos ship it and does not affect detection. Happy to fill in "amazee.io" if preferred.

Verifying

Detection only re-runs against the default branch, so gh api repos/amazeeio/amazee.ai --jq .license should report apache-2.0 once this merges to dev.

Greptile Summary

This PR replaces a paraphrased, truncated copy of the Apache License 2.0 with the canonical verbatim text sourced from gh api /licenses/apache-2.0, fixing GitHub's licensee detection which previously reported the repo as NOASSERTION / "Other". There are no changes to code, configuration, or licensing intent.

  • The canonical text restores the missing APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work section, missing definition language in §1 (the "submitted" definition for "Contribution"), and missing clause fragments in §§5, 8, and 9.
  • The APPENDIX copyright placeholder is left as Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner], which is the standard convention and does not affect license detection.

Confidence Score: 5/5

Safe to merge — this is a pure text replacement of the LICENSE file with no code changes whatsoever.

The change restores the verbatim Apache 2.0 text to fix GitHub license detection. No code, configuration, or logic is touched. The new text matches the canonical Apache-2.0 source and adds back the clauses and APPENDIX that were previously missing.

No files require special attention. The only changed file is LICENSE, and the replacement text is the well-known canonical Apache 2.0 license.

Important Files Changed

Filename Overview
LICENSE Replaced paraphrased/truncated Apache 2.0 text with the canonical verbatim license; adds the missing APPENDIX section and restores omitted clause language in §§5, 8, and 9.

Flowchart

%%{init: {'theme': 'neutral'}}%%
flowchart TD
    A[Old LICENSE\nParaphrased / truncated\n1247 words] -->|Replace with canonical text| B[New LICENSE\nVerbatim Apache-2.0\n1581 words]
    B --> C{GitHub licensee\nfuzzy-hash detection}
    C -->|Before PR| D[NOASSERTION / Other]
    C -->|After PR merges to dev| E[apache-2.0 ✓]
    E --> F[OSI-approved license detected\nEnables tools keyed on license]
Loading

Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "docs: use verbatim Apache-2.0 license te..." | Re-trigger Greptile

The LICENSE file contained a paraphrased and truncated copy of Apache-2.0
(1247 words vs 1581 canonical, missing the APPENDIX and clauses in §8/§9).
GitHub's licensee matches by fuzzy hash, so the repo was reported as
NOASSERTION/"Other" rather than Apache-2.0.

Replaced with the canonical text verbatim.
@dan2k3k4
dan2k3k4 requested a review from a team July 24, 2026 20:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant