package.json: Is it LICENSE or LICENSE.txt or something else?

[pzrq]

Expected Behaviour

The ... ui.frontend.../package.json file (ideally after generation) has a valid "license" key according to the npm documentation https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v10/configuring-npm/package-json#license

For example, could it be one of the following?

1. "license": "SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE",
2. "license": "Apache-2.0", (from the npm-linked SPDX License List)
3. Rename the license information file from LICENSE to LICENSE.txt

A rationale for this can be found, for example, when working with Amazon Inspector for SBOMs or similar legal compliance tooling at scale.

Actual Behaviour

This particular package.json file actually references a LICENSE.txt file which does not appear to exist:

aem-project-archetype/src/main/archetype/ui.frontend.general/package.json

Line 11 in 3433dc2

"license": "SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE.txt",

Could it also (apart from a few brackets and whitespace) be more simply defined as Apache-2.0, like is done elsewhere?

aem-project-archetype/src/main/archetype/ui.frontend.react.forms.af/package.json

Line 13 in 3433dc2

"license": "Apache-2.0",

Reproduce Scenario (including but not limited to)

Steps to Reproduce

I'm not sure exactly which command line my team used to generate the specific archetype for AEMaaCS which I saw this in, though absent other magic, I'd expect any archetype which contains a ui.frontend directory with a package.json file contained this issue.

Platform and Version

Most likely Windows 11, could also be macOS Sonoma or Ubuntu 22.04 LTS.

Sample Code that illustrates the problem

N/A

Logs taken while reproducing problem

N/A