Community health files, and a LICENSE GitHub can actually read

[alpibrupa]

GitHub reported no licence for this repository despite a LICENSE file being present — no badge, nothing for automated tooling to read, and a repository that looks unlicensed to anyone deciding whether they may use it.

The cause was the file. Compared against the text GitHub actually matches against, there were ten genuine word differences — not just formatting — and one of them sits in the Appendix, which Article 5 makes operative:

	old file	official text
compatible licences	LGPL v. 2.1, v. 2.1+	LGPL v. 2.1, v. 3
§6 warranty	"the fact of your having accepted"	"the fact You have accepted"

This repository was carrying a mis-transcribed EUPL. LICENSE is now the canonical text byte for byte, from the same source GitHub compares against. The licence chosen has not changed.

Plus the three files a contributor looks for and did not find:

• CONTRIBUTING.md — setup, what CI checks before it checks it, and the one rule that is not negotiable. Contributions are EUPL-1.2, stated plainly, with no separate agreement to sign.
• SECURITY.md — where to report privately, and more usefully what the interesting attack surface actually is: this project reads files a user points it at, so hostile input rather than merely malformed input is the question. Honest that there is no bounty and no SLA.
• CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md — Contributor Covenant 2.1 with a real contact address.

Description and topics set on the repository at the same time; both were empty.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code