Inconsistent licensing

[adam-vessey]

The package.json claims to be ISC (possibly as a result of defaults from npm?); however, there's no LICENSE file or similar with the expected license statement? As such, repackaging/use of this repo becomes questionable, and is presently causing some friction: https://groups.google.com/g/islandora/c/GgLAZ2wKgGM/m/1YsafDMXBAAJ

Thoughts on how to resolve? Half-feel like the addition of a LICENSE file with the expected contents of the license might resolve? Or, some other indications of relicensability, given this is more of a template repository? Unknown. Thoughts?

[cbeer]

The package.json claims to be ISC (possibly as a result of defaults from npm?);

Agreed, this is an NPM default and not an intentional choice.

Thoughts on how to resolve?

Agreed that this is a weird repo for licensing. The intent was to just show some examples of how to get things working, with no expectation that it'd be re-used in any meaningful way.

I'm not sure what the right resolution is, but if there's an approach that'd work best for you, I'd say submit a PR and I don't foresee any problem with us merging it.