Problem Statement The README states "MIT License — free to use, modify, and distribute." However, no LICENSE file exists in the repo.
Why it matters This is an immediate legal hygiene concern. Open-source code without a license is, in many jurisdictions, "all rights reserved" by default. Distribution under MIT must be made explicit.
Expected Outcome Add an explicit LICENSE-MIT and LICENSE-APACHE-2.0 (dual-license feels more accurate for a Stellar/Soroban project — e.g. parity with stellar-go and similar SDKs). Update the README's license section accordingly.
Acceptance Criteria
LICENSE-MIT and LICENSE-APACHE-2.0 at the repo root.
- README's "License" section is updated.
- A
Cargo.toml workspace license field is set to MIT OR Apache-2.0.
Implementation Notes
- Use full canonical LICENSE text. Don't paraphrase.
Affected Files / Modules
- New:
LICENSE-MIT, LICENSE-APACHE-2.0
Cargo.toml, README.md
Dependencies — None.
Problem Statement The README states "MIT License — free to use, modify, and distribute." However, no
LICENSEfile exists in the repo.Why it matters This is an immediate legal hygiene concern. Open-source code without a license is, in many jurisdictions, "all rights reserved" by default. Distribution under MIT must be made explicit.
Expected Outcome Add an explicit
LICENSE-MITandLICENSE-APACHE-2.0(dual-license feels more accurate for a Stellar/Soroban project — e.g. parity with stellar-go and similar SDKs). Update the README's license section accordingly.Acceptance Criteria
LICENSE-MITandLICENSE-APACHE-2.0at the repo root.Cargo.tomlworkspacelicensefield is set toMIT OR Apache-2.0.Implementation Notes
Affected Files / Modules
LICENSE-MIT,LICENSE-APACHE-2.0Cargo.toml,README.mdDependencies — None.