What the fuck did you do to your text? It's impossible to read.
96Is 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.
37Plus, 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"
23I 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 Their official distribution page links to the "secondary branch", which is actually an outdated tag branch.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.
5
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
3uhhhh I’ll take that as a compliment! 😇
4Sorry the typo on there was fully accidental, and a bit ironic concidering the context lmao
and yea if it works it works!
1
