Package Exports
- conformance
This package does not declare an exports field, so the exports above have been automatically detected and optimized by JSPM instead. If any package subpath is missing, it is recommended to post an issue to the original package (conformance) to support the "exports" field. If that is not possible, create a JSPM override to customize the exports field for this package.
Readme
Conformance
A module that helps you get insight into licenses included in the SPDX license list.
Usage
If you just want to see if a specific license ID or license string is conformant:
const conformance = require('conformance')
conformance('MIT')
conformance('ISC OR GPL-2.0-with-GCC-exception')
What
This module will spit out an object at you with a suite of information about a SPDX license expression you pass in. In general, it will look something like this:
{
"uniqueLicenseIds": [
"MIT"
],
"spdxLicenseLinks": [
"https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html#licenseText"
],
"spdx": {
"osi": true,
"fsf": true,
"fsfAndOsi": true,
"deprecated": false
}
}
API
Current usage looks like this:
const conformance = require('conformance')
conformance(<spdx expression>, [options])
Where:
<spdx expression
> is a required string.- Can be any valid SPDX license expression, which will be parsed by spdx-expression-parse.
[options]
is an optional object that contains the following properties:throwOnError
: aBoolean
that indicates whether or not you want to throw on errors.
Why
This is something I've wanted to see for a long time. I've personally seen how high of a barrier licensing can be for larger teams. By increasing insight into license strucutre across applications, we can hopefully lower the barrier for further adoption across industries ❤️
Limitations
- License expression depth is currently limited to three licenses. For example,
MIT AND (CC0-1.0 OR ISC)
is the current maximum depth. This will return 3 licenses, as you'd expect. This isn't a hard limit, it's just the depth that's been written in the context of licenses on npm. To date, I've not seen a license expression that goes futher than this. If this ends up being written, it should just be a recursive function that continues to check regardless of depth.