agentleFS
cwinvestmentscwinvestments/memstack/skills/business/licensing/SKILL.md

memstack-business-licensing

Skill425 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

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).

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    When this skill activates, output:

    line 13
  2. Very specific:

    Default to A if the repo contains web framework code (Next.js, FastAPI, Rails, etc.) and no installer/build target.

    line 55
  3. Distinctive:

    Custom / vendor licenses: read the actual terms verbatim

    line 105

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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

ContextStatus
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, copyleftACTIVE
User is preparing to ship, sell, or relicense a productACTIVE
User wants security vulnerability scanningDORMANT: use dependency-audit
User wants a service contract or NDADORMANT: use contract-template

Common Mistakes

MistakeWhy 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.

StackManifestDiscovery command
Node.jspackage.json, package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, yarn.locknpm ls --all --json then npx license-checker --json --production
Pythonrequirements*.txt, pyproject.toml, Pipfile.lock, poetry.lockpip-licenses --format=json --with-license-file --with-urls
RustCargo.toml, Cargo.lockcargo license --json
Gogo.mod, go.sumgo-licenses report ./... --template '{{.Name}},{{.LicenseName}},{{.LicenseURL}}'
Javapom.xml, build.gradlemvn license:add-third-party or gradle-license-report
RubyGemfile, Gemfile.lockbundle exec license_finder report --format json
PHPcomposer.json, composer.lockcomposer licenses --format=json
.NET*.csproj, packages.lock.jsondotnet list package --include-transitive + nuget-license
Container base imagesDockerfilesyft <image> -o spdx-json then read package licenses
Vendored / submodulesvendor/, third_party/, .gitmoduleswalk directories: look for LICENSE, LICENSE.md, COPYING, NOTICE
Fonts / icons / mediaassets/, public/, static/check each asset's source license: commonly missed
Snippets and copy-pasted codecomments, headers`grep -rEin "CopyrightSPDX-License-Identifier"`

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:

ProjectVersion cutOld → New
Elasticsearch7.10 → 7.11Apache-2.0 → SSPL/Elastic
Redis7.2 → 7.4BSD → SSPL/RSAL
Terraform1.5 → 1.6MPL-2.0 → BSL
MongoDB4.0AGPL → SSPL
HashiCorp tools2023MPL-2.0 → BSL
Sentry8.xBSD → 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

ClassExamplesCommercial use allowed?Reach
Public domainCC0, Unlicense, WTFPL, 0BSDYes: no obligationsNone
PermissiveMIT, BSD-2/3, ISC, Apache-2.0, ZlibYes: preserve noticeNone
Weak copyleftLGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, EPL-2.0Yes with obligationsFile-level (MPL) or dynamic-linking carve-out (LGPL)
Strong copyleftGPL-2.0, GPL-3.0Yes, but derivative works become GPL on distributionWhole derivative work
Network copyleftAGPL-3.0Yes, but SaaS triggers source disclosureWhole derivative work + network use
Source-available (non-OSI)BSL, SSPL, Elastic v2, Commons Clause, RSAL, FSLRestricted: usually no competing hosted servicePer terms
Creative CommonsCC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-NDNC = no commercial; SA = share-alike; ND = no derivativesPer variant
Proprietary / commercial EULAVendor SDKs, paid librariesPer contractPer contract
Unknown / no licenseNo LICENSE fileNo, all rights reserved by defaultN/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:

VerdictSymbolMeaning
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 classA. SaaSB. BinaryC. OSS libraryD. 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 EULAper contractper contractper contractper 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)

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.