Skip Navigation
38 comments
  • Is this post about Github seemingly detecting an incorrect licence? The project was relicenced in a later commit, so I dont think this behavior is entirely wrong.

    • Plus, the license was only changed on a secondary branch. The default branch still has the MIT license. The text at the top isn't "this is the license file you have open" it's "the repo is licensed under this" so it's correct behavior but bad UX. It would be most user-friendly to show repo license and then also say "this branch has an invalid license, beware shenanigans"

      • I didn't even realize that! Their official distribution page links to the "secondary branch", which is actually an outdated tag branch. The license was changed a month ago.

    • that's why it's wrong

      • What should it do instead? I think the only reasonable action would be not showing it if the licence file was changed.

  • I might be able to read this on light mode but, on dark mode + that layout it's hard

    not as bad as the 1 word speed reader but still it's almost impossible to focus on. I'm impressed that you are able to

    • uhhhh I’ll take that as a compliment! 😇

      • Sorry the typo on there was fully accidental, and a bit ironic concidering the context lmao

        and yea if it works it works!

38 comments