Hi again 👋 — separate from #71 and much smaller, but it's a blocker for anyone wanting to build on CodeFlow.
The gap
- README L9 has the badge:
[](https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
- But there's no
LICENSE file in the repo, and GitHub's API returns no license object:
gh repo view braedonsaunders/codeflow --json licenseInfo
# {"licenseInfo": null}GitHub only detects a license from a LICENSE/COPYING file at the root, so the sidebar shows no license and automated tooling treats the project as all rights reserved by default.
Why it matters
A badge alone isn't a license grant, so anyone who wants to vendor, fork, redistribute, or bundle index.html has no clear legal permission to do so — even though your intent is obviously MIT. In my case: CodeFlow is a single self-contained file, which makes it ideal to vendor rather than depend on the hosted deployment (better for uptime, reproducibility, and offline use). I'd rather not do that until the license is explicit.
Fix (about 30 seconds)
GitHub's Add file → Create new file → name it LICENSE flow offers a license picker that fills in the MIT text with your name and year. Or:
MIT License
Copyright (c) 2026 Braedon Saunders
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
... (standard MIT text)
Happy to open a PR with the MIT text if you'd prefer — just confirm the copyright holder name/year you want on it.
Thanks!
Hi again 👋 — separate from #71 and much smaller, but it's a blocker for anyone wanting to build on CodeFlow.
The gap
[](https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)LICENSEfile in the repo, and GitHub's API returns no license object:gh repo view braedonsaunders/codeflow --json licenseInfo # {"licenseInfo": null}GitHub only detects a license from a
LICENSE/COPYINGfile at the root, so the sidebar shows no license and automated tooling treats the project as all rights reserved by default.Why it matters
A badge alone isn't a license grant, so anyone who wants to vendor, fork, redistribute, or bundle
index.htmlhas no clear legal permission to do so — even though your intent is obviously MIT. In my case: CodeFlow is a single self-contained file, which makes it ideal to vendor rather than depend on the hosted deployment (better for uptime, reproducibility, and offline use). I'd rather not do that until the license is explicit.Fix (about 30 seconds)
GitHub's Add file → Create new file → name it
LICENSEflow offers a license picker that fills in the MIT text with your name and year. Or:Happy to open a PR with the MIT text if you'd prefer — just confirm the copyright holder name/year you want on it.
Thanks!