2 months ago
9036ef8Adds two docs in the same style as the open-git progress doc, plus the license file they refer to. LICENSE did not exist, and package.json declared no license. The repo was therefore 'all rights reserved' by default, whatever the intent — nobody could legally use it. Both now say MIT. Copyright reads Boring Software Inc; correct the entity name if that is not exact. contributing.md documents only real commands, in the order CI runs them, so a green machine means a green pull request. It states the three build-enforced laws (apps never imported by packages, nothing imports core but worker, no adapter imports a sibling) and why core is pure: a rule is a plain function, so its test needs no database. The license explainer covers what MIT permits, the single obligation, and why MIT rather than a copyleft licence. It is marked as not legal advice, and says the LICENSE file is what counts. No active rule is named in any of these.
Parent0b1a092
