You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 18, 2021. It is now read-only.
When a repo has a license, GitHub does a nice job trying to indicate the license in the header at the top right. However, when a repo doesn't have a license, it simply omits this. I think not having any indication of the missing license makes it easier to miss this fact.
With an open license (shows explicitly, MIT):
Without a license of any kind, nothing is shown (easy to miss):
It might be good if it at least indicated the absence of the license somehow, and/or linked to something that gave people a sense of what this means.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When a repo has a license, GitHub does a nice job trying to indicate the license in the header at the top right. However, when a repo doesn't have a license, it simply omits this. I think not having any indication of the missing license makes it easier to miss this fact.
With an open license (shows explicitly,
MIT
):Without a license of any kind, nothing is shown (easy to miss):
It might be good if it at least indicated the absence of the license somehow, and/or linked to something that gave people a sense of what this means.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: