fix: replace MIT license with research preview notice#126
Conversation
- **Replace** the MIT license with a Research Preview notice reserving all rights, because the project is unpublished thesis research and must not be reused or redistributed before the associated paper is published - **Add** CITATION.cff with CFF 1.2.0 metadata (author, ORCID, affiliation, repository) so academic users can cite the software correctly - **Update** the license badge and License section in both READMEs to match the new notice and link LICENSE and CITATION.cff - **Correct** docs/research/tool-analysis.md tables one and nine, which still claimed MIT licensing and open-source community reuse Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Caution The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub has been sunset. All code review activity has officially ceased. |
Qodo reviews are paused for this user.Troubleshooting steps vary by plan Learn more → On a Teams plan? Using GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab Self-Managed, or Bitbucket Data Center? |
![amazon-q-developer[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1220912?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
This PR transitions the repository from MIT license to a Research Preview notice. The license change itself is properly implemented with:
✅ Well-structured Research Preview notice in LICENSE with clear sections
✅ Valid CITATION.cff file following CFF 1.2.0 specification
✅ Updated license badges in both README files
✅ Comprehensive documentation updates across 5 files
Critical Issue Found:
🛑 Documentation Inconsistencies: Multiple locations still claim the project is "open source" and enables "community-driven improvement" and "reuse," which directly contradicts the Research Preview license that prohibits use, modification, and distribution without written authorization. These misleading claims must be corrected before merge.
The identified inconsistencies create confusion about usage rights and could mislead potential users. Please address the flagged documentation issues to ensure accuracy.
You can now have the agent implement changes and create commits directly on your pull request's source branch. Simply comment with /q followed by your request in natural language to ask the agent to make changes.
- **Revise** Key Contributions item 6 in both READMEs from "Open Source" to "Publicly Viewable Research Preview", because the new LICENSE prohibits reuse and the old wording misled users about usage rights - **Correct** the Label Studio comparison table row "Open source" in both READMEs from a checkmark to a Research Preview annotation, including the English table row the bot did not flag (cross-check rule) Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
1 participant
Purpose
Align the repository's licensing with its actual status as unpublished thesis research by replacing the MIT license with an all-rights-reserved Research Preview notice.
Reason
The project was initialized with an MIT license, but it is unpublished research work (Demo Paper in progress). MIT grants unrestricted reuse and redistribution, which conflicts with keeping the work protected until the associated paper is published. The repository also lacked citation metadata for academic users.
Result
CITATION.cff(CFF 1.2.0) with author, ORCID, affiliation, repositoryChanged Files
LICENSECITATION.cffREADME.mdREADME.zh-TW.mddocs/research/tool-analysis.mdTest Plan
CITATION.cffparses as valid YAML and contains all CFF 1.2.0 required keys (cff-version,message,title,authors)repository-codeURL matches the actual git remote (singyichen/label-suite)#license→## License,#授權→## 授權MITsweep returns only third-party license references (package-lock.json, vendored skill files)LICENSE↔CITATION.cff↔ READMEs)Impact Scope
Related
Checklist
<type>: <description>🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Review Resolutions
Round 1 — 2026-07-22
README.md: revised Key Contributions item 6 from "Open Source" to "Publicly Viewable Research Preview" — the old wording contradicted the new LICENSEREADME.md: corrected the comparison-table "Open source" row from ✓ to ✗ (Research Preview) — English counterpart of the flagged zh-TW row, caught via cross-checkREADME.zh-TW.md: revised 主要貢獻 item 6 (開放原始碼 → 公開檢視的研究預覽)README.zh-TW.md: corrected the 開放原始碼 comparison-table row from ✓ to ✗ (Research Preview)