Jest: license of some modules

[luisapace]

Hi, my team would use jest-circus, jest-core, jest-runtime, jest-cli (all 24.8.0) and to approve that I've to verify all its licenses.

Now I've seen that some modules (i.e.



)
show this header:
*_ This source code is licensed under the BSD-style license found in the

LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree. An additional grant
of patent rights can be found in the PATENTS file in the same directory._**

but in the root directory of the source I cannot see any BSD and PATENT license files.

Could you please clarify me what are the licenses?

Thanks for your support on this.

[pedrottimark]

@cpojer Is it okay to replace any obsolete comments with current license comment:

/**
 * Copyright (c) Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.
 *
 * This source code is licensed under the MIT license found in the
 * LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree.
 */

[cpojer]

Yes

[SimenB]

@pedrottimark can you ensure https://github.com/facebook/jest/blob/a501718b80b8b5fbfa3baed1c4fe88fe67b4b062/scripts/checkCopyrightHeaders.js complains about the dated headers?

[pedrottimark]

@SimenB The 11 files with obsolete license info match the copyright line

157 files fail if I change the criterion to the following four lines:

 * Copyright (c) Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.
 *
 * This source code is licensed under the MIT license found in the
 * LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree.

For example:

• scripts/checkCopyrightHeaders.js lacks a period at end of its copyright line but you will laugh how long it took me to understand why it has been passing: includes the search string :)
• website/static/css/custom.css has only copyright line but not license sentence

I am willing to go either way:

• Fix 11 files and keep current criterion
• Fix 157 files and upgrade to more complete and specific criterion

[arturrz]

Have you done anything about this? There might not be compliance issues between MIT and BSD-style but it can be misleading while making Open Source Compliance review. It's always good to encourage such good practices when developing open source projects.
;)

[pedrottimark]

@luisapace Yes, thank y’all for finding this problem. /cc @arturrz

In #8783 and related chore #8815

• replaced obsolete sentence about BSD with correct MIT license in 10 files
• added missing sentence about MIT license to copyright comment in more than 100 files

So it has been fixed in the repo, although there has not been a new minor version yet

[AbhaysinghBhosale]

anyone have ideas that why all child directory and parent DIR don't have License.
I checked in node_modules/@jest - many child and parent DIR don't have License added.