Font-awesome: Contradicting license for @fortawesome/fontawesome-common-types: MIT or Pro

[PhilippWendler]

Describe the bug

The npm package @fortawesome/fontawesome-common-types in its latest version (0.2.25) has a package.json that declares "license": "MIT", but the LICENSE.txt file in the package contains the "Font Awesome Pro License". At least one of this must be wrong.

I am not sure why this happens because https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/blob/master/js-packages/%40fortawesome/fontawesome-common-types/LICENSE.txt was last changed 10 months ago and contains the "Fontawesome Free License" (which is still not ideal, but at least refers to MIT for code), although the npm package was published just one month ago.

To Reproduce

Download fontawesome-common-types-0.2.25.tgz and compare content of package.json and LICENSE.txt.

Expected behavior

License declaration for package and actual license text should match.

Version and implementation
Version: 0.2.25

Bug report checklist

• [x] I have filled out as much of the above information as I can
• [ ] I have included a test case because my odds go _way_ up that the team can fix this when I do
• [x] I have searched for existing issues and to the best of my knowledge this is not a duplicate

[tagliala]

Hi!

Thanks for being part of the Font Awesome Community and thanks for reporting this.

I think there is a mistake in the downloadable package

@robmadole could you please take a look?

[robmadole]

This is just a mistake. We'll get it fixed in 5.12.0. It should be MIT which is for the JavaScript code.

[haf]

So if this happens:

$ npm install @types/styled-jsx

... snip
834 verbose stack Error: 402 Payment Required - GET https://dl.fontawesome.com/signed/fontawesome-pro/npm/fortawesome/fontawesome-common-types/0.2.25/fortawesome-fontawesome-common-types-0.2.25.tgz?source=t-mNfJaFFoPPIt&signature=gAAAAABeGEmWJe64n2-LcBNUKVsPSsrDiZTxgZYkp9AFIF5Wd1j0wo6nmNMYKBHSOZducnh3xdEsUhfWBziz7jsc1othAuvslpjVhxbPg6AbCfmIuqnAzhluXeFFEla8ERTWuxYBQ4Ri
834 verbose stack     at res.buffer.catch.then.body (/Users/h/.nvm/versions/node/v11.12.0/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules/npm-registry-fetch/check-response.js:104:15)
834 verbose stack     at processTicksAndRejections (internal/process/next_tick.js:81:5)
835 verbose statusCode 402
836 verbose pkgid @fortawesome/[email protected]

When you depend on these packages:

    "@fortawesome/fontawesome-svg-core": "^1.2.25",
    "@fortawesome/free-brands-svg-icons": "^5.11.2",
    "@fortawesome/free-solid-svg-icons": "^5.11.2",
    "@fortawesome/react-fontawesome": "^0.1.7",

What's up then?

$ grep -R -I 'fontawesome-pro' .

Yields no results.

[tagliala]

@haf sorry, the license server is down. Please follow up on #16046

[robmadole]

The NPM outage has been resolved

[PhilippWendler]

In version 0.2.26, there is fortunately no longer the wrong reference to the Font Awesome Pro License. Thanks!

However, LICENSE.txt contains the Font Awesome Free License whereas package.json declares MIT, so there is still some inconsistency. The Font Awesome Free License actually says that all files in this package are under the MIT license, but people might still wonder why LICENSE.txt does not just contain the same license as declared in package.json.

If this is intended, this issue can be closed.

[tagliala]

Thanks for the heads-up

However, LICENSE.txt contains the Font Awesome Free License whereas package.json declares MIT, so there is still some inconsistency.

I think it has been done to keep just one LICENSE.txt across all the packages.

The same happens for fontawesome-svg-core, another package with MIT license: https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/blob/master/js-packages/%40fortawesome/fontawesome-svg-core/LICENSE.txt

Going to close here for the moment