Conversation
tl;dr -- providing a missing license file, copyright information is best-guess, go ahead and modify the PR with accurate information
The `LICENSE` file appears to be missing or was accidentally removed (I didn't dig around to much to see what happened.) Since the `README` declares MIT license and points to the `LICENSE` file in the source root, I figure this MIT file with the copyright dates covering the length of the codebase would be the right thing, yes?
Regarding copyright ownership mentioned there --that practice of naming an entity and others ("et al") is one I have seen and used before to simplify the list. This is because the commit history holds the details about who created what. (A variation is "Copyright (C) 2022-2025 Kit Project contributors", and the contributors are by definition those in the commit history.)
The reason for picking Alex's name is this project shows the signs of being a personal project and not on behalf of an employer. Where open source is written as works-for-hire, the practice of putting the employer in as the copyright holder is commonly used, and the licensing by that copyright holder provides the individual contributors the assurance of using and contributing to this code base going forward (even if they move on to a different employer, etc.)
Signed-off-by: Karsten Wade <quaid@iquaid.org>
WalkthroughAdds a new Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes Poem
Tip 🔌 Remote MCP (Model Context Protocol) integration is now available!Pro plan users can now connect to remote MCP servers from the Integrations page. Connect with popular remote MCPs such as Notion and Linear to add more context to your reviews and chats. 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro 💡 Knowledge Base configuration:
You can enable these sources in your CodeRabbit configuration. 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR/Issue comments)Type Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
LICENSE (3)
1-1: Consider canonicalizing the copyright line and adding a title for better license detection.Many scanners look for a “MIT License” title and a canonical “Copyright (c) …” format. Optional but improves auto-detection and consistency.
Apply this diff:
+MIT License + -Copyright 2022-2025 Alex Collins et al +Copyright (c) 2022-2025 Kit Project contributorsNotes:
- If you prefer naming the individual, keep it but still add “(c)”:
Copyright (c) 2022-2025 Alex Collins and contributors.- Feel free to adjust the holder name per the project’s preference (e.g., “The Kit Project contributors”).
3-7: Replace curly quotes with straight ASCII quotes to avoid license-scanner mismatches.Some tools fail to match the MIT text when typographic quotes are used.
Apply this diff:
-Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: +Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: @@ -THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. +THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
8-8: Add a trailing newline at EOF.Ensures POSIX-compatibility and avoids noisy diffs in future edits.
Apply this diff:
-8 +8 +
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
💡 Knowledge Base configuration:
- MCP integration is disabled by default for public repositories
- Jira integration is disabled by default for public repositories
- Linear integration is disabled by default for public repositories
You can enable these sources in your CodeRabbit configuration.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
LICENSE(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
LICENSE (2)
1-7: Good addition: repository now has a clear MIT license.This unblocks downstream consumers, compliance scanners, and package registries that expect a LICENSE at the repo root.
1-1: ✅ License range “2022–2025” is accurate
The project’s first commit is dated December 18, 2022, so the start year inLICENSEcorrectly reflects the initial contribution. No update required.
Pulling in the CodeRabbit suggestions (as I couldn't find another way to accept the suggested nitpicks, which were good stuff IMO.) Signed-off-by: Karsten Wade <quaid@iquaid.org>
2 participants
tl;dr -- providing a missing license file, copyright information is best-guess, go ahead and modify the PR with accurate information
The
LICENSEfile appears to be missing or was accidentally removed (I didn't dig around to much to see what happened.) Since theREADMEdeclares MIT license and points to theLICENSEfile in the source root, I figure this MIT file with the copyright dates covering the length of the codebase would be the right thing, yes?Regarding copyright ownership mentioned there --that practice of naming an entity and others ("et al") is one I have seen and used before to simplify the list. This is because the commit history holds the details about who created what. (A variation is "Copyright (C) 2022-2025 Kit Project contributors", and the contributors are by definition those in the commit history.)
The reason for picking Alex's name is this project shows the signs of being a personal project and not on behalf of an employer. Where open source is written as works-for-hire, the practice of putting the employer in as the copyright holder is commonly used, and the licensing by that copyright holder provides the individual contributors the assurance of using and contributing to this code base going forward (even if they move on to a different employer, etc.)
Summary by CodeRabbit