Add a LICENSE file? (repo description says open-source)

[blaisepl54-byte]

Hi — thanks for publishing these compositions; they're a great reference for the FRAME.MD model.

The repo description says "Open-source HyperFrames compositions behind HeyGen's product launch videos", and the main hyperframes framework repo is Apache-2.0 — but this repo doesn't ship a LICENSE file, which makes downstream use legally ambiguous for anyone with license-compliance tooling.

Would you consider adding the intended license (Apache-2.0 to match the framework, presumably)? A one-file PR would make the open-source intent explicit and let automated license gates consume the compositions cleanly.

Thanks!

[pablotdf]

+1, with a concrete downstream case in case it helps prioritise this.

We build a SaaS that renders social-media videos for medical practices, using HyperFrames as the rendering engine. These 16 compositions are the closest thing to a production-grade reference we've found, and we'd like to adapt several of them as templates our users can pick from.

We can't, and it's purely the missing LICENSE file. Our compliance rule is simple: no license means all rights reserved, so it doesn't get shipped — regardless of how the README reads. We've had to mark this repo "do not use" in our own template catalogue while we wait.

Apache-2.0 would match the main hyperframes repo and resolve it in one commit. MIT would work equally well for us. Happy either way — the ambiguity is the only blocker.

Thanks for publishing these in the first place; they're genuinely the best reference material out there for the format.

[pablotdf]

Following up — 6 weeks on the issue, 3.5 weeks since my comment above, still shipping around it.

Since then I've had a look at what's actually in here, and I suspect the ask as originally phrased is harder than it looks from the outside: these compositions embed third-party brand assets (Stripe, Figma, Anthropic, SpaceX, Kimi) and ship fonts via LFS. Nobody can grant blanket rights to someone else's trademarks or redistribute a foundry's fonts, so "just add Apache-2.0" probably isn't a one-file PR for you — which would explain the silence better than neglect does.

So let me narrow it to the part that would actually unblock downstream use:

License the composition source — HTML, CSS, JS, JSON — under Apache-2.0 to match the framework, and explicitly exclude the bundled brand assets and fonts. A LICENSE plus a short NOTICE saying "code is Apache-2.0; logos, brand assets and fonts are not licensed for reuse" would do it.

That's the part with the value for us anyway. We want the technique — how a production-grade HyperFrames composition is structured and choreographed — not your logos. Nobody is going to ship a SpaceX mark in a dermatology reel.

Happy to open that PR (LICENSE + NOTICE, no other changes) if it's easier to review than to write. And if the answer is "these are published as reference only, not for reuse", that's a fine answer too — it just needs saying, because right now the repo description says "Open-source HyperFrames compositions" and the missing file says the opposite.