0

If a javascript library is licensed under BSD-3, but the license itself isn't distributed with any versioned releases from the author (only a copyright notice and a link to the main site) should I modify the distributed files and include the license?

If the answer is no to the above question, would I need to if I intended to modify the release copy that I was given?

I know I would include it if I was modifying original source and compiling my own version.

A specific example would be Quilljs https://github.com/quilljs/quill/releases which includes the license in the source but not in the compiled releases (quill.tar.gz).

Onboardmass
  • 9
  • 1
  • 2
    You might want to read this recent question, where several answers opine that including the whole MIT/BSD licence text in each file is helpful to just about everyone, and well-worth doing. If you do, can you let us know if it answers your question, and if not, what remains to be answered? – MadHatter Jan 09 '22 at 09:46
  • I read that one before posting my question since it was suggested by the system. I have no issue with modifying the release files from the author to include the license if that's the route that checks the most boxes.

    My question was more focused on the specific scenario of the release version from the author having only the copyright notice and not the BSD-3 declaration.

     – Onboardmass Jan 09 '22 at 10:05
  • 1
    Thanks for having followed the system's reading list - not everyone does that, and it's much appreciated. Yes, I think the thrust of the linked answers are that restoring the licence text is best for everyone, even though you may not be obliged to do so. Are you satisfied with that? – MadHatter Jan 09 '22 at 10:05
  • Yes, I'll move forward with that. I've just reviewed a few other libraries and e.g. jquery and see that they include a reference to the license so I think my case might be something being missed by the author. – Onboardmass Jan 09 '22 at 10:11
  • 1
    Then on that basis I've closed your question as a duplicate of the linked one. Please don't read anything into that except a formalisation of your acceptance that your question has been dealt with to your satisfaction by existing answers. It is in particular not a criticism of your question, which was a textbook example of a first question - clear, concise, and inclusive of a pointer to an offsite example. Thank you for it, and I hope you bring more questions here in the future. – MadHatter Jan 09 '22 at 10:18

0 Answers0