license folder

[rajapandi1234]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Added multiple open-source license files (Apache 2.0, BSD 3-Clause, EPL 1.0, EPL 2.0, LGPL 3.0, MIT, Mozilla 2.0, and BSD 3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License).
  • Added a NOTICE file documenting third-party licenses and copyright notices for project dependencies.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This pull request adds ten new license files to the licenses/ directory, including Apache 2.0, BSD-3-Clause (standard and no-nuclear variants), EPL 1.0 and 2.0, LGPL 3.0, MIT, Mozilla Public License 2.0 (two variants), and a consolidated NOTICE document listing third-party copyright notices and licensing information.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Change Summary
License Documents licenses/Apache-2.0.txt, licenses/BSD-3-Clause.txt, licenses/BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License.txt, licenses/EPL-1.0.txt, licenses/EPL-2.0.txt, licenses/LGPL-3.0.txt, licenses/MIT.txt, licenses/MOZILLA-2.0.txt, licenses/MPL-2.0.txt	Added full license text documents for major open-source licenses (Apache, BSD, Eclipse Public, LGPL, MIT, Mozilla). Each file contains complete license terms, conditions, and legal notices.
Third-Party Notice licenses/NOTICE	Added consolidated notice document detailing copyright notices and license identifiers for MOSIP packages, build plugins, testing frameworks, Spring components, Jackson libraries, Apache Commons, logging frameworks, Google libraries, and biometrics/image processing dependencies.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~5 minutes

Suggested reviewers

• Mahesh-Binayak
• JanardhanBS-SyncByte

Poem

🐰 A license for this, a license for that,
Compliance is neat, imagine all that!
From Apache to Eclipse, MIT to the rest,
Our legal docs now look their best! ✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title 'license folder' is vague and generic, failing to describe the specific content or purpose of the changes made in this pull request.	Revise the title to be more specific and descriptive, such as 'Add license files for Apache, BSD, EPL, LGPL, MIT, and Mozilla' or 'Add comprehensive open source license documentation' to clearly communicate the main changes.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 2

📜 Review details

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 76f59d0 and 256b9c8.

📒 Files selected for processing (10)

• licenses/Apache-2.0.txt
• licenses/BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License.txt‎
• licenses/BSD-3-Clause.txt
• licenses/EPL-1.0.txt
• licenses/EPL-2.0.txt‎
• licenses/LGPL-3.0.txt‎
• licenses/MIT.txt
• licenses/MOZILLA-2.0.txt
• licenses/MPL-2.0.txt
• licenses/NOTICE

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 LanguageTool

licenses/MOZILLA-2.0.txt

[style] ~33-~33: ‘any and all’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...e of the initial grant or subsequently, any and all of the rights conveyed by this License....

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_ANY_AND_ALL)

---

[style] ~63-~63: ‘with respect to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...ate The licenses granted in Section 2.1 with respect to any Contribution become effective for e...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_WITH_RESPECT_TO)

---

[style] ~106-~106: As an alternative to the over-used intensifier ‘absolutely’, consider replacing this phrase.
Context: ...lf of any Contributor. You must make it absolutely clear that any such warranty, support, indemn...

(EN_WEAK_ADJECTIVE)

---

[style] ~109-~109: ‘with respect to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...y with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Covered Software due...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_WITH_RESPECT_TO)

---

[style] ~112-~112: ‘prior to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...non-compliance by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after You have come back into c...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_PRIOR_TO)

---

[style] ~112-~112: ‘prior to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...h Contributor, and You become compliant prior to 30 days after Your receipt of the notic...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_PRIOR_TO)

---

[style] ~114-~114: ‘any and all’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...tent, then the rights granted to You by any and all Contributors for the Covered Software u...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_ANY_AND_ALL)

---

[style] ~116-~116: ‘prior to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...or Your distributors under this License prior to termination shall survive termination. ...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_PRIOR_TO)

---

[style] ~122-~122: ‘any and all’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...ge, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losses, eve...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_ANY_AND_ALL)

---

[style] ~128-~128: This phrase is redundant. Consider using “subject” to avoid wordiness.
Context: ...s the complete agreement concerning the subject matter hereof. If any provision of this Licens...

(SUBJECT_MATTER)

licenses/EPL-1.0.txt

[style] ~16-~16: ‘in conjunction with’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...eparate modules of software distributed in conjunction with the Program under their own license agr...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_IN_CONJUNCTION_WITH)

---

[grammar] ~32-~32: Use a hyphen to join words.
Context: ... needed, if any. For example, if a third party patent license is required to allo...

(QB_NEW_EN_HYPHEN)

---

[style] ~50-~50: Consider replacing this phrase with the adverb “reasonably” to avoid wordiness.
Context: ... and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used...

(IN_A_X_MANNER)

---

[style] ~64-~64: ‘with respect to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...are may accept certain responsibilities with respect to end users, business partners and the li...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_WITH_RESPECT_TO)

---

[style] ~64-~64: Consider a more concise word here.
Context: ...ged intellectual property infringement. In order to qualify, an Indemnified Contributor mus...

(IN_ORDER_TO_PREMIUM)

---

[style] ~84-~84: Consider a more concise word here.
Context: ...istribute copies of this Agreement, but in order to avoid inconsistency the Agreement is co...

(IN_ORDER_TO_PREMIUM)

licenses/MPL-2.0.txt

[style] ~47-~47: ‘any and all’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...e of the initial grant or subsequently, any and all of the rights conveyed by this License....

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_ANY_AND_ALL)

---

[style] ~107-~107: ‘with respect to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...te The licenses granted in Section 2.1 with respect to any Contribution become effective for e...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_WITH_RESPECT_TO)

---

[style] ~212-~212: As an alternative to the over-used intensifier ‘absolutely’, consider replacing this phrase.
Context: ...lf of any Contributor. You must make it absolutely clear that any such warranty, support, indemn...

(EN_WEAK_ADJECTIVE)

---

[style] ~224-~224: ‘with respect to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...y with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Covered Software due...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_WITH_RESPECT_TO)

---

[style] ~242-~242: ‘prior to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...non-compliance by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after You have come back into c...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_PRIOR_TO)

---

[style] ~247-~247: ‘prior to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...h Contributor, and You become compliant prior to 30 days after Your receipt of the notic...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_PRIOR_TO)

---

[style] ~254-~254: ‘any and all’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...tent, then the rights granted to You by any and all Contributors for the Covered Software u...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_ANY_AND_ALL)

---

[style] ~259-~259: ‘prior to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...or Your distributors under this License prior to termination shall survive termination. ...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_PRIOR_TO)

licenses/Apache-2.0.txt

[style] ~161-~161: ‘any and all’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...ge, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losse...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_ANY_AND_ALL)

🔇 Additional comments (11)

licenses/BSD-3-Clause.txt (1)

1-9: License file content looks correct.

The BSD-3-Clause license text appears complete and matches the standard form, including the three required conditions and warranty disclaimer.

licenses/MIT.txt (1)

3-3: Clarify copyright attribution.

The MIT license file attributes copyright to "Mockito contributors" rather than the MOSIP project. Verify whether this is intentional (e.g., a specific dependency) or if the copyright line should be updated to reflect the actual rights holder for this repository.

licenses/BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License.txt‎ (1)

1-15: License file content looks correct.

The BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License text is complete, including all three conditions, warranty disclaimer, and the nuclear facilities usage restriction clause.

licenses/Apache-2.0.txt (1)

1-200: License file is complete and correct.

The Apache License 2.0 text is complete, including all nine sections and the appendix with application instructions. Style warnings from LanguageTool relate to the official license language and should not be modified, as changes could affect the legal validity of the license.

licenses/LGPL-3.0.txt‎ (2)

1-10: Verify LGPL copyright attribution.

The LGPL-3.0 section attributes copyright to "Konrad Malawski" (an individual) rather than to the MOSIP project or organization. This appears to be copied from a specific project's license header. Verify whether this is intentional or if the copyright line should be updated to reflect the actual rights holder.

---

73-100: GPL 3.0 section content looks correct.

The GPL 3.0 text is complete and accurate, with proper copyright attribution to the Free Software Foundation. The combined inclusion of LGPL-3.0 and GPL-3.0 in a single file follows the standard pattern where LGPL-3.0 incorporates GPL-3.0.

licenses/EPL-1.0.txt (1)

1-86: License file is complete and correct.

The Eclipse Public License 1.0 text is complete, including all required sections (Definitions, Grant of Rights, Requirements, Commercial Distribution, No Warranty, Disclaimer of Liability, and General). Style warnings from LanguageTool are part of the official license language and should not be modified.

licenses/MPL-2.0.txt (1)

1-374: License file is complete and correct.

The Mozilla Public License 2.0 text is comprehensive and complete, including all definitions, sections 2-10, and both required exhibits. The detailed structure with numbered subsections matches the official MPL 2.0 format.

licenses/MOZILLA-2.0.txt (1)

1-151: Clarify purpose of MOZILLA-2.0.txt file.

This file contains the Mozilla Public License 2.0, but nearly identical content exists in licenses/MPL-2.0.txt. Verify whether both files are intentional (e.g., different naming conventions for different purposes) or if one is redundant. Additionally, note that line 144 uses https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/ while the other MPL file uses http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/ — confirm this difference is intentional.

licenses/EPL-2.0.txt‎ (1)

1-80: License text appears complete.

The EPL-2.0 license text looks complete and correctly formatted. As a best practice, verify this matches the official text from the Eclipse Foundation.

licenses/NOTICE (1)

1-234: Well-structured NOTICE file.

The NOTICE file is well-organized with clear section separators and comprehensive coverage of third-party dependencies. The categorization into logical groups (build plugins, testing frameworks, runtime dependencies, etc.) improves readability and maintainability.