Summary:

VRChat's own VPM packages are getting distributed with missing licence information. A change request for the documentation about VPM License files.

According to UPM docs (https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/upm-manifestPkg.html)

Licence:

> Identifier for an OSS license using the SPDX identifier format, or a string such as “Refer to LICENSE.md file”.

> Note: If you omit this property in your package manifest, your package must contain a LICENSE.md file.

LicenceUrl:

> Custom location for this package’s license information, specified as a URL. For example:

> "licensesUrl": "https://example.com/licensing.html"

> Note: If the Package Manager can’t reach the URL location (for example, if there is a network issue), it does the following:

> - If the package is installed, it opens a file browser displaying the LICENSE.md file in the package cache.

> - If the package isn’t installed, the Package Manager displays a warning that offline license information isn’t available.

According to VPM docs (https://vcc.docs.vrchat.com/vpm/packages/)

> We also highly recommend listing the license of your package in the package manifest. Unity requires this field if you do not have LICENSE file in your project, but we recommend specifying it even if you do have a LICENSE file. This field might be displayed in the VCC interface in the future. The license should use the SPDX format.

None of the above is done by VRChat itself. Instead VRChat distributes a licence.txt file inside vpm packages with an URL to the license.

Moving (or copying if there is a need for the LICENSE.txt) the licensesUrl from inside Licence.txt to the LicensesUrl key inside package.json seems to be the needed change.

VPM (uses LICENSE) and UPM (uses LICENSE.md) using different license filenames. Is this an oversight? Why did this got changed? Can we have some more clearification about it?