Licensing: Commercial-use license audit from the repo...
Scans a repository for every license that touches the product (deps, vendored code, fonts, assets), then produces a per-package verdict table marking each as Ready, Citation Required, Needs Info, or Not Allowed for commercial use.
Activation
When this skill activates, output:
Licensing, Commercial-use license audit from the repo...
Then execute the protocol below.
Context Guard
| Context |
Status |
| User says "license audit", "licensing", "license check" |
ACTIVE |
| User asks "can I use this commercially?" or "is this safe to ship?" |
ACTIVE |
| User mentions GPL, AGPL, LGPL, MPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, copyleft |
ACTIVE |
| User is preparing to ship, sell, or relicense a product |
ACTIVE |
| User wants security vulnerability scanning |
DORMANT: use dependency-audit |
| User wants a service contract or NDA |
DORMANT: use contract-template |
Common Mistakes
| Mistake |
Why It's Wrong |
| "MIT and GPL are both open source so they're compatible" |
Combining MIT into GPL is fine; the reverse forces your code under GPL. Direction matters. |
| "We don't distribute, so AGPL doesn't apply" |
AGPL §13 triggers on network use. SaaS counts. |
| "It's on GitHub so it's free to use" |
Public ≠ licensed. No LICENSE file = all rights reserved. |
| "Transitive dependencies don't matter" |
Your bundle ships every dep in the tree. Copyleft transitives can taint the whole product. |
| "License from package.json metadata is authoritative" |
The actual LICENSE file in upstream source is authoritative. Metadata is often wrong, missing, or outdated. |
| "BSL / SSPL / Elastic / Commons Clause are open source" |
They are not OSI-approved and usually restrict commercial hosting or competition. Read the actual terms. |
Disclaimer: Produces a license inventory and risk assessment, not legal advice. License interpretation (especially copyleft scope, "linking", and SaaS triggers) is contested. Engage IP counsel before shipping high-stakes products.
Protocol
Step 1: Confirm the distribution model
Just one question, the verdict logic depends on it:
How is the product distributed?
- A. SaaS / hosted (users access over the network, no binary handed out)
- B. Distributed binary (desktop, mobile, on-prem install, downloadable executable)
- C. Open-source library you publish for others to consume
- D. Internal only (no users outside your organisation)
Default to A if the repo contains web framework code (Next.js, FastAPI, Rails, etc.) and no installer/build target.
Step 2: Scan the repo for every license source
Walk every manifest, lockfile, vendored directory, and asset folder. Never trust a single source: cross-check.
| Stack |
Manifest |
Discovery command |
| Node.js |
package.json, package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, yarn.lock |
npm ls --all --json then npx license-checker --json --production |
| Python |
requirements*.txt, pyproject.toml, Pipfile.lock, poetry.lock |
pip-licenses --format=json --with-license-file --with-urls |
| Rust |
Cargo.toml, Cargo.lock |
cargo license --json |
| Go |
go.mod, go.sum |
go-licenses report ./... --template '{{.Name}},{{.LicenseName}},{{.LicenseURL}}' |
| Java |
pom.xml, build.gradle |
mvn license:add-third-party or gradle-license-report |
| Ruby |
Gemfile, Gemfile.lock |
bundle exec license_finder report --format json |
| PHP |
composer.json, composer.lock |
composer licenses --format=json |
| .NET |
*.csproj, packages.lock.json |
dotnet list package --include-transitive + nuget-license |
| Container base images |
Dockerfile |
syft <image> -o spdx-json then read package licenses |
| Vendored / submodules |
vendor/, third_party/, .gitmodules |
walk directories: look for LICENSE, LICENSE.md, COPYING, NOTICE |
| Fonts / icons / media |
assets/, public/, static/ |
check each asset's source license: commonly missed |
| Snippets and copy-pasted code |
comments, headers |
`grep -rEin "Copyright |
For everything found, capture:
| Package | Version | Declared license (manifest) | License file present | Direct/transitive | Source URL |
|---------|---------|----------------------------|---------------------|-------------------|------------|
| react | 18.3.1 | MIT | Yes | direct | github.com/facebook/react |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Step 3: Resolve the actual license (don't trust metadata)
For every entry that is HIGH-impact (copyleft candidate, missing license, or version where licenses are known to change), open the upstream LICENSE file and confirm the SPDX identifier.
Watch for license changes between versions:
| Project |
Version cut |
Old → New |
| Elasticsearch |
7.10 → 7.11 |
Apache-2.0 → SSPL/Elastic |
| Redis |
7.2 → 7.4 |
BSD → SSPL/RSAL |
| Terraform |
1.5 → 1.6 |
MPL-2.0 → BSL |
| MongoDB |
4.0 |
AGPL → SSPL |
| HashiCorp tools |
2023 |
MPL-2.0 → BSL |
| Sentry |
8.x |
BSD → FSL |
Pin to the last compliant version or migrate.
Also check for:
- Dual licensing ("MIT OR Apache-2.0"), pick the option you'll comply with and record the choice
- Commons Clause layered on top of an OSI license: restricts "selling"
- Custom / vendor licenses: read the actual terms verbatim
Step 4: Classify each license
| Class |
Examples |
Commercial use allowed? |
Reach |
| Public domain |
CC0, Unlicense, WTFPL, 0BSD |
Yes: no obligations |
None |
| Permissive |
MIT, BSD-2/3, ISC, Apache-2.0, Zlib |
Yes: preserve notice |
None |
| Weak copyleft |
LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, EPL-2.0 |
Yes with obligations |
File-level (MPL) or dynamic-linking carve-out (LGPL) |
| Strong copyleft |
GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0 |
Yes, but derivative works become GPL on distribution |
Whole derivative work |
| Network copyleft |
AGPL-3.0 |
Yes, but SaaS triggers source disclosure |
Whole derivative work + network use |
| Source-available (non-OSI) |
BSL, SSPL, Elastic v2, Commons Clause, RSAL, FSL |
Restricted: usually no competing hosted service |
Per terms |
| Creative Commons |
CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-ND |
NC = no commercial; SA = share-alike; ND = no derivatives |
Per variant |
| Proprietary / commercial EULA |
Vendor SDKs, paid libraries |
Per contract |
Per contract |
| Unknown / no license |
No LICENSE file |
No, all rights reserved by default |
N/A |
Step 5: Apply the verdict per package
For every dependency, run it through the distribution model from Step 1 and assign exactly one verdict:
| Verdict |
Symbol |
Meaning |
| Ready for commercial use |
✅ |
No obligations beyond preserving the existing notice file. Safe to ship. |
| Citation / attribution required |
📝 |
Commercial use is allowed but the license requires the copyright notice and license text to be reproduced (typically in THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md, an About page, or alongside the binary). MIT, BSD, Apache-2.0, ISC, Zlib all fall here when shipped to users. |
| More information needed |
❓ |
License is unknown, ambiguous, dual-licensed, or version-changed. Cannot ship until resolved. |
| Not allowed for commercial use |
❌ |
License blocks the chosen distribution model. Must replace, remove, relicense, or buy a commercial exception. |
Verdict rules per distribution model:
| License class |
A. SaaS |
B. Binary |
C. OSS library |
D. Internal |
| Public domain |
✅ |
✅ |
✅ |
✅ |
| Permissive (MIT, BSD, Apache, ISC, Zlib) |
📝 |
📝 |
📝 |
✅ |
| LGPL |
📝 |
📝 (must allow relinking) |
📝 |
✅ |
| MPL-2.0 / EPL-2.0 |
📝 |
📝 (file-level disclosure) |
📝 |
✅ |
| GPL-2.0 / GPL-3.0 |
📝 (no distribution = no source disclosure) |
❌ (forces whole product GPL) |
❌ unless your lib is also GPL |
✅ |
| AGPL-3.0 |
❌ (network use triggers source disclosure) |
❌ |
❌ unless your lib is AGPL |
✅ |
| BSL |
❓ → usually ❌ for SaaS (read additional use grant) |
❓ |
❌ |
✅ |
| SSPL |
❌ for SaaS |
❌ |
❌ |
✅ |
| Elastic v2 / Commons Clause / RSAL / FSL |
❌ |
❌ |
❌ |
✅ |
| CC-BY |
📝 |
📝 |
📝 |
✅ |
| CC-BY-SA |
📝 (share-alike on derivatives) |
📝 |
❌ unless your work is also SA |
✅ |
| CC-BY-NC |
❌ |
❌ |
❌ |
✅ |
| CC-BY-ND |
❌ if modified |
❌ if modified |
❌ if modified |
✅ |
| Proprietary EULA |
per contract |
per contract |
per contract |
per contract |
| Unknown / no license |
❓ → ❌ until resolved |
❓ → ❌ |
❓ → ❌ |
❓ → ❌ |
Step 6: Build the verdict table
This is the primary deliverable. One row per dependency, sorted by verdict severity (❌ → ❓ → 📝 → ✅).
| Package | Version | License | Direct/Trans | Verdict | Required action |
|---------|---------|---------|--------------|---------|----------------|
| ❌ mongodb | 6.0.5 | SSPL-1.0 | direct | ❌ Not allowed for SaaS | Replace with PostgreSQL or buy commercial license |
| ❌ some-lib | 2.1.0 | AGPL-3.0 | direct | ❌ Not allowed for SaaS | Replace with permissive alternative |
| ❓ obscure-pkg | 0.4.2 | (no LICENSE file) | transitive | ❓ Unknown | Open upstream issue; pin or remove until resolved |
| ❓ dual-pkg | 1.2.0 | "MIT OR GPL-3.0" | direct | ❓ Choose | Document MIT election in NOTICE |
| 📝 react | 18.3.1 | MIT | direct | 📝 Citation required | Add to THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md |
| 📝 fastify | 4.26.0 | MIT | direct | 📝 Citation required | Add to THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md |
| 📝 lodash | 4.17.21 | MIT | transitive | 📝 Citation required | Add to THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md |
| 📝 protobufjs | 7.2.5 | BSD-3-Clause | transitive | 📝 Citation required | Add to THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md |
| 📝 fonts/inter | none | OFL-1.1 | asset | 📝 Citation required | Include OFL.txt in assets/fonts/ |
| ✅ classnames | 2.5.1 | MIT | transitive | ✅ Ready | (already in attribution bundle) |
| ✅ public-domain-pkg | 1.0.0 | CC0-1.0 | direct | ✅ Ready | None |
Step 7: Generate the attribution bundle
For every 📝 row, the user needs a THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md (or NOTICES.txt) shipped alongside the product. Offer to generate it:
# Third-Party Licenses
This product includes the following third-party software:
## react v18.3.1
**License:** MIT
**Source:** https://github.com/facebook/react
**Copyright:** Copyright (c) Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates.
[Full MIT license text verbatim]
---
## next-package vA.B.C
...
For Apache-2.0 deps, also preserve any upstream NOTICE file content.
Step 8: Produce the report
## License Audit: [Project Name]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Distribution model:** [A. SaaS / B. Binary / C. Library / D. Internal]
**Project's own license:** [SPDX or "proprietary"]
**Total dependencies analysed:** [N direct + M transitive + K assets]
### Verdict summary
| Verdict | Count |
|---------|-------|
| ❌ Not allowed for commercial use | [N] |
| ❓ More information needed | [N] |
| 📝 Citation / attribution required | [N] |
| ✅ Ready for commercial use | [N] |
### Commercial-use verdict
**[CLEAR TO SHIP / CLEAR WITH CITATION OBLIGATIONS / BLOCKED]**
[2 to 3 sentences explaining the verdict and naming the specific blockers if any.]
### Full verdict table
[Table from Step 6]
### Required attribution bundle
[Either inline THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md content, or a list of packages that must appear in it]
### Remediation plan (priority order)
1. **❌ [Blocker]**: [package], [replace with X / remove feature Y / buy license / quarantine]
2. **❓ [Unknown]**: [package]: [investigation step]
3. **📝 [Attribution gap]**: [add to THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md]
### Recommended next steps
1. Resolve every ❌ before shipping
2. Resolve every ❓ before shipping
3. Generate / update `THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md` and ship with the product
4. Add an automated license check to CI to catch new dependencies
5. Re-run this audit before each release
6. Have IP counsel review if any BSL/SSPL/AGPL/unknown findings remain
Output Format
Deliver the Step 8 report as markdown. Save under docs/compliance/license-audit.md if a project layout is available. Save the generated attribution bundle as THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md at the repo root. Include the exact discovery commands you ran in an appendix so the user can reproduce.
Completion
Licensing: Audit complete!
Distribution model: [A / B / C / D]
Dependencies analysed: [N direct + M transitive + K assets]
❌ Blocked: [N]
❓ Unknown: [N]
📝 Citation required: [N]
✅ Ready: [N]
Verdict: [CLEAR / CLEAR WITH OBLIGATIONS / BLOCKED]
Next steps:
1. Resolve every ❌ before shipping
2. Resolve every ❓ before shipping
3. Ship THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md alongside the product
4. Add license check to CI
5. Have IP counsel review high-risk findings
Level History
- Lv.1: Base: distribution-model question, multi-language repo scan (Node/Python/Rust/Go/Java/Ruby/PHP/.NET/containers/vendored/assets), upstream LICENSE verification, version-change traps (Elastic/Mongo/Redis/Terraform/Sentry/HashiCorp), 9-class taxonomy, 4-verdict system (✅ Ready / 📝 Citation / ❓ Needs info / ❌ Not allowed), distribution-model verdict matrix, primary verdict table, attribution bundle generator, full report with summary counts and remediation plan. (Origin: MemStack Pro v3.6, Apr 2026)
1---2name: memstack-business-licensing3description: Use this skill when the user says 'licensing', 'license audit', 'can I use this commercially', 'OSS license check', 'license compatibility', 'GPL', 'MIT', 'AGPL', 'copyleft'. Scans the repository for every dependency and asset license, then produces a per-package verdict table: ready for commercial use, citation/attribution required, more information needed, or commercial use not allowed. Do NOT use for vulnerability scanning (use dependency-audit) or contract drafting (use contract-template).4license: Proprietary, MemStack™ Pro by CW Affiliate Investments LLC. See 5---67# Licensing: Commercial-use license audit from the repo...8*Scans a repository for every license that touches the product (deps, vendored code, fonts, assets), then produces a per-package verdict table marking each as Ready, Citation Required, Needs Info, or Not Allowed for commercial use.*910## Activation1112When this skill activates, output:1314`Licensing, Commercial-use license audit from the repo...`1516Then execute the protocol below.1718## Context Guard1920| Context | Status |21|---------|--------|22| User says "license audit", "licensing", "license check" | ACTIVE |23| User asks "can I use this commercially?" or "is this safe to ship?" | ACTIVE |24| User mentions GPL, AGPL, LGPL, MPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, copyleft | ACTIVE |25| User is preparing to ship, sell, or relicense a product | ACTIVE |26| User wants security vulnerability scanning | DORMANT: use dependency-audit |27| User wants a service contract or NDA | DORMANT: use contract-template |2829## Common Mistakes3031| Mistake | Why It's Wrong |32|---------|---------------|33| "MIT and GPL are both open source so they're compatible" | Combining MIT into GPL is fine; the reverse forces your code under GPL. Direction matters. |34| "We don't distribute, so AGPL doesn't apply" | AGPL §13 triggers on *network use*. SaaS counts. |35| "It's on GitHub so it's free to use" | Public ≠ licensed. No LICENSE file = all rights reserved. |36| "Transitive dependencies don't matter" | Your bundle ships every dep in the tree. Copyleft transitives can taint the whole product. |37| "License from package.json metadata is authoritative" | The actual `LICENSE` file in upstream source is authoritative. Metadata is often wrong, missing, or outdated. |38| "BSL / SSPL / Elastic / Commons Clause are open source" | They are not OSI-approved and usually restrict commercial hosting or competition. Read the actual terms. |3940**Disclaimer:** Produces a license inventory and risk assessment, not legal advice. License interpretation (especially copyleft scope, "linking", and SaaS triggers) is contested. Engage IP counsel before shipping high-stakes products.4142## Protocol4344### Step 1: Confirm the distribution model4546Just one question, the verdict logic depends on it:4748> How is the product distributed?49> - **A. SaaS / hosted** (users access over the network, no binary handed out)50> - **B. Distributed binary** (desktop, mobile, on-prem install, downloadable executable)51> - **C. Open-source library** you publish for others to consume52> - **D. Internal only** (no users outside your organisation)5354Default to A if the repo contains web framework code (Next.js, FastAPI, Rails, etc.) and no installer/build target.5556### Step 2: Scan the repo for every license source5758Walk every manifest, lockfile, vendored directory, and asset folder. Never trust a single source: cross-check.5960| Stack | Manifest | Discovery command |61|-------|----------|-------------------|62| Node.js | `package.json`, `package-lock.json`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `yarn.lock` | `npm ls --all --json` then `npx license-checker --json --production` |63| Python | `requirements*.txt`, `pyproject.toml`, `Pipfile.lock`, `poetry.lock` | `pip-licenses --format=json --with-license-file --with-urls` |64| Rust | `Cargo.toml`, `Cargo.lock` | `cargo license --json` |65| Go | `go.mod`, `go.sum` | `go-licenses report ./... --template '{{.Name}},{{.LicenseName}},{{.LicenseURL}}'` |66| Java | `pom.xml`, `build.gradle` | `mvn license:add-third-party` or `gradle-license-report` |67| Ruby | `Gemfile`, `Gemfile.lock` | `bundle exec license_finder report --format json` |68| PHP | `composer.json`, `composer.lock` | `composer licenses --format=json` |69| .NET | `*.csproj`, `packages.lock.json` | `dotnet list package --include-transitive` + `nuget-license` |70| Container base images | `Dockerfile` | `syft <image> -o spdx-json` then read package licenses |71| Vendored / submodules | `vendor/`, `third_party/`, `.gitmodules` | walk directories: look for `LICENSE`, `LICENSE.md`, `COPYING`, `NOTICE` |72| Fonts / icons / media | `assets/`, `public/`, `static/` | check each asset's source license: **commonly missed** |73| Snippets and copy-pasted code | comments, headers | `grep -rEin "Copyright|SPDX-License-Identifier"` |7475For everything found, capture:7677```markdown78| Package | Version | Declared license (manifest) | License file present | Direct/transitive | Source URL |79|---------|---------|----------------------------|---------------------|-------------------|------------|80| react | 18.3.1 | MIT | Yes | direct | github.com/facebook/react |81| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |82```8384### Step 3: Resolve the actual license (don't trust metadata)8586For every entry that is HIGH-impact (copyleft candidate, missing license, or version where licenses are known to change), open the upstream `LICENSE` file and confirm the SPDX identifier.8788Watch for **license changes between versions**:8990| Project | Version cut | Old → New |91|---------|-------------|-----------|92| Elasticsearch | 7.10 → 7.11 | Apache-2.0 → SSPL/Elastic |93| Redis | 7.2 → 7.4 | BSD → SSPL/RSAL |94| Terraform | 1.5 → 1.6 | MPL-2.0 → BSL |95| MongoDB | 4.0 | AGPL → SSPL |96| HashiCorp tools | 2023 | MPL-2.0 → BSL |97| Sentry | 8.x | BSD → FSL |9899Pin to the last compliant version or migrate.100101Also check for:102- **Dual licensing** ("MIT OR Apache-2.0"), pick the option you'll comply with and record the choice103- **Commons Clause** layered on top of an OSI license: restricts "selling"104- **Custom / vendor licenses**: read the actual terms verbatim105106### Step 4: Classify each license107108| Class | Examples | Commercial use allowed? | Reach |109|-------|----------|------------------------|-------|110| **Public domain** | CC0, Unlicense, WTFPL, 0BSD | Yes: no obligations | None |111| **Permissive** | MIT, BSD-2/3, ISC, Apache-2.0, Zlib | Yes: preserve notice | None |112| **Weak copyleft** | LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, EPL-2.0 | Yes with obligations | File-level (MPL) or dynamic-linking carve-out (LGPL) |113| **Strong copyleft** | GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0 | Yes, but derivative works become GPL on distribution | Whole derivative work |114| **Network copyleft** | AGPL-3.0 | Yes, but SaaS triggers source disclosure | Whole derivative work + network use |115| **Source-available (non-OSI)** | BSL, SSPL, Elastic v2, Commons Clause, RSAL, FSL | **Restricted**: usually no competing hosted service | Per terms |116| **Creative Commons** | CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-ND | NC = no commercial; SA = share-alike; ND = no derivatives | Per variant |117| **Proprietary / commercial EULA** | Vendor SDKs, paid libraries | Per contract | Per contract |118| **Unknown / no license** | No LICENSE file | **No, all rights reserved by default** | N/A |119120### Step 5: Apply the verdict per package121122For every dependency, run it through the **distribution model from Step 1** and assign exactly one verdict:123124| Verdict | Symbol | Meaning |125|---------|--------|---------|126| **Ready for commercial use** | ✅ | No obligations beyond preserving the existing notice file. Safe to ship. |127| **Citation / attribution required** | 📝 | Commercial use is allowed but the license **requires** the copyright notice and license text to be reproduced (typically in `THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md`, an About page, or alongside the binary). MIT, BSD, Apache-2.0, ISC, Zlib all fall here when shipped to users. |128| **More information needed** | ❓ | License is unknown, ambiguous, dual-licensed, or version-changed. Cannot ship until resolved. |129| **Not allowed for commercial use** | ❌ | License blocks the chosen distribution model. Must replace, remove, relicense, or buy a commercial exception. |130131**Verdict rules per distribution model:**132133| License class | A. SaaS | B. Binary | C. OSS library | D. Internal |134|---------------|---------|-----------|----------------|-------------|135| Public domain | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |136| Permissive (MIT, BSD, Apache, ISC, Zlib) | 📝 | 📝 | 📝 | ✅ |137| LGPL | 📝 | 📝 (must allow relinking) | 📝 | ✅ |138| MPL-2.0 / EPL-2.0 | 📝 | 📝 (file-level disclosure) | 📝 | ✅ |139| GPL-2.0 / GPL-3.0 | 📝 (no distribution = no source disclosure) | ❌ (forces whole product GPL) | ❌ unless your lib is also GPL | ✅ |140| AGPL-3.0 | ❌ (network use triggers source disclosure) | ❌ | ❌ unless your lib is AGPL | ✅ |141| BSL | ❓ → usually ❌ for SaaS (read additional use grant) | ❓ | ❌ | ✅ |142| SSPL | ❌ for SaaS | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ |143| Elastic v2 / Commons Clause / RSAL / FSL | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ |144| CC-BY | 📝 | 📝 | 📝 | ✅ |145| CC-BY-SA | 📝 (share-alike on derivatives) | 📝 | ❌ unless your work is also SA | ✅ |146| CC-BY-NC | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ |147| CC-BY-ND | ❌ if modified | ❌ if modified | ❌ if modified | ✅ |148| Proprietary EULA | per contract | per contract | per contract | per contract |149| Unknown / no license | ❓ → ❌ until resolved | ❓ → ❌ | ❓ → ❌ | ❓ → ❌ |150151### Step 6: Build the verdict table152153This is the primary deliverable. One row per dependency, sorted by verdict severity (❌ → ❓ → 📝 → ✅).154155```markdown156| Package | Version | License | Direct/Trans | Verdict | Required action |157|---------|---------|---------|--------------|---------|----------------|158| ❌ mongodb | 6.0.5 | SSPL-1.0 | direct | ❌ Not allowed for SaaS | Replace with PostgreSQL or buy commercial license |159| ❌ some-lib | 2.1.0 | AGPL-3.0 | direct | ❌ Not allowed for SaaS | Replace with permissive alternative |160| ❓ obscure-pkg | 0.4.2 | (no LICENSE file) | transitive | ❓ Unknown | Open upstream issue; pin or remove until resolved |161| ❓ dual-pkg | 1.2.0 | "MIT OR GPL-3.0" | direct | ❓ Choose | Document MIT election in NOTICE |162| 📝 react | 18.3.1 | MIT | direct | 📝 Citation required | Add to THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md |163| 📝 fastify | 4.26.0 | MIT | direct | 📝 Citation required | Add to THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md |164| 📝 lodash | 4.17.21 | MIT | transitive | 📝 Citation required | Add to THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md |165| 📝 protobufjs | 7.2.5 | BSD-3-Clause | transitive | 📝 Citation required | Add to THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md |166| 📝 fonts/inter | none | OFL-1.1 | asset | 📝 Citation required | Include OFL.txt in assets/fonts/ |167| ✅ classnames | 2.5.1 | MIT | transitive | ✅ Ready | (already in attribution bundle) |168| ✅ public-domain-pkg | 1.0.0 | CC0-1.0 | direct | ✅ Ready | None |169```170171### Step 7: Generate the attribution bundle172173For every 📝 row, the user needs a `THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md` (or `NOTICES.txt`) shipped alongside the product. Offer to generate it:174175```markdown176# Third-Party Licenses177178This product includes the following third-party software:179180## react v18.3.1181**License:** MIT182**Source:** https://github.com/facebook/react183**Copyright:** Copyright (c) Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates.184185[Full MIT license text verbatim]186187---188189## next-package vA.B.C190...191```192193For Apache-2.0 deps, also preserve any upstream `NOTICE` file content.194195### Step 8: Produce the report196197```markdown198## License Audit: [Project Name]199200**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]201**Distribution model:** [A. SaaS / B. Binary / C. Library / D. Internal]202**Project's own license:** [SPDX or "proprietary"]203**Total dependencies analysed:** [N direct + M transitive + K assets]204205### Verdict summary206| Verdict | Count |207|---------|-------|208| ❌ Not allowed for commercial use | [N] |209| ❓ More information needed | [N] |210| 📝 Citation / attribution required | [N] |211| ✅ Ready for commercial use | [N] |212213### Commercial-use verdict214**[CLEAR TO SHIP / CLEAR WITH CITATION OBLIGATIONS / BLOCKED]**215216[2 to 3 sentences explaining the verdict and naming the specific blockers if any.]217218### Full verdict table219[Table from Step 6]220221### Required attribution bundle222[Either inline THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md content, or a list of packages that must appear in it]223224### Remediation plan (priority order)2251. **❌ [Blocker]**: [package], [replace with X / remove feature Y / buy license / quarantine]2262. **❓ [Unknown]**: [package]: [investigation step]2273. **📝 [Attribution gap]**: [add to THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md]228229### Recommended next steps2301. Resolve every ❌ before shipping2312. Resolve every ❓ before shipping2323. Generate / update `THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md` and ship with the product2334. Add an automated license check to CI to catch new dependencies2345. Re-run this audit before each release2356. Have IP counsel review if any BSL/SSPL/AGPL/unknown findings remain236```237238## Output Format239240Deliver the Step 8 report as markdown. Save under `docs/compliance/license-audit.md` if a project layout is available. Save the generated attribution bundle as `THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md` at the repo root. Include the exact discovery commands you ran in an appendix so the user can reproduce.241242## Completion243244```245Licensing: Audit complete!246247Distribution model: [A / B / C / D]248Dependencies analysed: [N direct + M transitive + K assets]249❌ Blocked: [N]250❓ Unknown: [N]251📝 Citation required: [N]252✅ Ready: [N]253Verdict: [CLEAR / CLEAR WITH OBLIGATIONS / BLOCKED]254255Next steps:2561. Resolve every ❌ before shipping2572. Resolve every ❓ before shipping2583. Ship THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES.md alongside the product2594. Add license check to CI2605. Have IP counsel review high-risk findings261```262263## Level History264265- **Lv.1**: Base: distribution-model question, multi-language repo scan (Node/Python/Rust/Go/Java/Ruby/PHP/.NET/containers/vendored/assets), upstream LICENSE verification, version-change traps (Elastic/Mongo/Redis/Terraform/Sentry/HashiCorp), 9-class taxonomy, 4-verdict system (✅ Ready / 📝 Citation / ❓ Needs info / ❌ Not allowed), distribution-model verdict matrix, primary verdict table, attribution bundle generator, full report with summary counts and remediation plan. (Origin: MemStack Pro v3.6, Apr 2026)
cwinvestments