Package.json spdx BSD format

[lneves12]

I wonder if the package.json license field shouldn't follow the SPDX format.

Checking https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html#licenseText the short format should be 0BSD instead of "BSD".

Am I missing anything here?

[mbrukman]

This project's license is actually the 3-clause BSD license aka BSD-3-Clause in SPDX terms, whereas you linked to the 0-clause BSD license. This project shows a mix of SPDX identifiers, including an MIT license for one of the packages:

$ grep license `find . -name package.json`
./packages/metal-dom/package.json:  "license": "BSD",
./packages/metal/package.json:  "license": "BSD-3-Clause",
./packages/metal-events/package.json:  "license": "BSD",
./packages/metal-incremental-dom/package.json:  "license": "BSD",
./packages/metal-jsx/package.json:  "license": "BSD",
./packages/metal-state/package.json:  "license": "BSD",
./packages/metal-soy-bundle/package.json:  "license": "MIT",
./packages/metal-assertions/package.json:  "license": "BSD-3-Clause",
./packages/metal-isomorphic/package.json:	"license": "BSD",
./packages/metal-web-component/package.json:  "license": "BSD-3-Clause",
./packages/metal-component/package.json:  "license": "BSD",
./packages/metal-soy/package.json:  "license": "BSD",

The project owners should review this and consider:

• replacing BSD with BSD-3-Clause for most packages, as per top-level LICENSE.md file
• whether metal-soy-bundle should really be MIT or whether it should actually be BSD-3-Clause as well