Repository navigation
Ship the licence in release tarballs - #40
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The packaging steps copied `../LICENSE`, which points outside the checkout: the step runs at the repo root, where the file is `LICENSE`. The path never matched, and `2>/dev/null || echo "LICENSE not found at repo root; skipping"` turned that into a log line nobody reads. The Windows step had the same path wrapped in a `Test-Path` guard, which hid it the same way. So every release has shipped with no licence file while this workflow's own header claims it "bundles each binary with LICENSE + README". Verified against the published 0.13.0 x86_64-linux tarball: `./`, `./README.md`, `./bootintel` and nothing else. The repo is Apache-2.0, and section 4(a) requires giving recipients a copy of the licence with the work, so this is a distribution defect rather than a tidiness one. Found while verifying the 0.14.0 draft before publishing it. The draft is being rebuilt on this fix rather than published as-is. Both copies are now unguarded. A missing licence should fail the release, since tolerating the miss is what kept it invisible for six releases. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The packaging steps copied
../LICENSE, which points outside the checkout — the step runs at the repo root, where the file isLICENSE. The path never matched, and this turned the miss into a log line nobody reads:The Windows step had the same wrong path wrapped in a
Test-Pathguard, hiding it the same way.So every release has shipped with no licence file, while this workflow's own header claims it "bundles each binary with LICENSE + README". Verified against the published 0.13.0 tarball:
The repo is Apache-2.0, and §4(a) requires giving recipients a copy of the licence with the work, so this is a distribution defect rather than a tidiness one.
Found while verifying the 0.14.0 draft before publishing. The draft is being rebuilt on this fix rather than published as-is.
Both copies are now unguarded — a missing licence should fail the release, since tolerating the miss is what kept it invisible for six releases.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code