No LICENSE makes it impossible to use!

[hopeseekr]

Your project is lacking a LICENSE file.

That means that it is impossible for anyone to legally use it in published works. Please advise, and please do not choose a FSF license (GPL, etc.) or any other copyleft viral license.

[robertsky]

Dude,

Read the codes: Apache License, Version 2.0

https://github.com/ccampbell/chromephp/blob/master/ChromePhp.php#L5-L9

[hopeseekr]

Good choice of license! I like the Apache 2.0 license, personally. The standard these days is for there to be a license file. Since so many github projects are not licensed properly, no one really spends the time pouring into proprietary files to see if there is some clause allowing usage. At least I don't.

[robertsky]

Well, it is good practice as well to read through the codes to at least see what the codes do and if there are any flaws to be resolved. The last thing you would want to do is to introduce bugs into your own codes. :-)

[Soviut]

The license is also listed in the composer.json file but @hopeseekr why not do a pull request with a license file setup?

[hopeseekr]

I had no idea it was in the composer file. i didn't know licenses could be there. The only accepted standard is for there to be a LICENSE.txt.

[Soviut]

All package/dependency managers must include the license, but I agree that
someone should add the license file. Could you do a pull request?

On Monday, August 17, 2015, Theodore R. Smith notifications@github.com
wrote:

I had no idea it was in the composer file. i didn't know licenses could be
there. The only accepted standard is for there to be a LICENSE.txt.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#47 (comment).

[hopeseekr]

Bump~! I did add the license wayyyy back on March 30th via PR #48.

I couldn't utilize chromephp due to the lack of clear (to the client corp's lawyers) License file back in March. I want to include it with another client now. Pretty please? :-D