Wrong license spdx (MIT instead of Apache-2.0) is shown in the npmjs.com repository

[johannesstellnberger]

In the metadata shown in the npmjs.com repository of this component is wrong (MIT instead of Apache-2.0).
If you display the license file (shown at code link) the correct license file is attached.

==> is it possible to correct this metadata so npm works with all metadata correct?

https://www.npmjs.com/package/@pkgjs/parseargs

[ljharb]

You're right there's a mismatch; I'd say the SPDX declaration takes precedence personally (50513fc) but the license file could be argued as well.

There are 10 non-bot contributors. Can each of you explicitly confirm whether you're comfortable with your contributions being Apache-2, MIT, or either? (Ideally, we'll go with MIT, but the important point is that all contributors agree)

• @shadowspawn
  • MIT
  • Apache2
• @bcoe
  • MIT
  • Apache2
• @darcyclarke
  • MIT
  • Apache2
• @ljharb
  • MIT
  • Apache2
• @aaronccasanova
  • MIT
  • Apache2
• @bakkot
  • MIT
  • Apache2
• @Eomm
  • MIT
  • Apache2
• @joesepi
  • MIT
  • Apache2
• @JessNah
  • MIT
  • Apache2
• @kisaragi-hiu
  • MIT
  • Apache2

[shadowspawn]

Related: #153 #154

Thanks for explicitly checking with contributors @ljharb

[kisaragi-hiu]

I'm comfortable with either license for my contributions.

[darcyclarke]

Apologies for the confusion here. Looks like this was a mistake I committed awhile back & never caught it. Given that I checked in the Apache license I believe that's likely what should take precedence even though the package.json metadata is often used by tools. I'm flexible though so I checked "either". I'll leave it to the current maintainers to decide how to move forward.

[shadowspawn]

@bcoe @Eomm

Tidying up the licence confusion in parseArgs repo. Would you please confirm whether you're comfortable with your contributions being Apache-2, MIT, or either?

You can just tick the appropriate checkboxes in this comment:
#162 (comment)