Problem
README.md's badge row pairs "Version 1.8.0" (line 6) directly next to "License: Apache-2.0" (line 7). A reader sees these two badges side by side and reasonably concludes that the current published release, v1.8.0, is Apache-2.0 licensed.
But the README's own License section (lines 654-660) says the opposite for that exact version: "Base is licensed under Apache-2.0 starting with v1.9.0" and "Versions v1.0.1 through v1.8.0 remain available under AGPL-3.0-or-later." So within the same file, the badge pairing implies v1.8.0 is Apache-2.0, while the prose two badges' width away says v1.8.0 is actually AGPL-3.0-or-later.
This traces back to intentional prospective-relicense work (commit ed6636d, #1960, 2026-08-16) that updated the root LICENSE file ahead of the v1.9.0 release -- so the License badge is technically accurate for the current checkout (main branch), but it reads as a factual claim about the currently published version sitting right next to a badge naming that version.
Why this matters
License terms are exactly the kind of claim a reader (or their legal/compliance process) takes at face value from a badge, without necessarily reading the prose below. A badge pairing that implies the wrong license for the currently-tagged release is the kind of small inconsistency that becomes a real problem if someone acts on it.
Proposed change
Pick one of:
- Add a qualifier near the badges (e.g. "License: Apache-2.0 (from v1.9.0)") so the badge doesn't stand alone as an unqualified claim.
- Move the License badge to reflect the currently published release's license (AGPL-3.0-or-later for v1.8.0) until v1.9.0 actually ships, updating it at release time.
- At minimum, add a one-line note directly under the badge row pointing to the License section for version-specific terms.
Acceptance criteria
Problem
README.md's badge row pairs "Version 1.8.0" (line 6) directly next to "License: Apache-2.0" (line 7). A reader sees these two badges side by side and reasonably concludes that the current published release, v1.8.0, is Apache-2.0 licensed.
But the README's own License section (lines 654-660) says the opposite for that exact version: "Base is licensed under Apache-2.0 starting with v1.9.0" and "Versions v1.0.1 through v1.8.0 remain available under AGPL-3.0-or-later." So within the same file, the badge pairing implies v1.8.0 is Apache-2.0, while the prose two badges' width away says v1.8.0 is actually AGPL-3.0-or-later.
This traces back to intentional prospective-relicense work (commit
ed6636d, #1960, 2026-08-16) that updated the root LICENSE file ahead of the v1.9.0 release -- so the License badge is technically accurate for the current checkout (main branch), but it reads as a factual claim about the currently published version sitting right next to a badge naming that version.Why this matters
License terms are exactly the kind of claim a reader (or their legal/compliance process) takes at face value from a badge, without necessarily reading the prose below. A badge pairing that implies the wrong license for the currently-tagged release is the kind of small inconsistency that becomes a real problem if someone acts on it.
Proposed change
Pick one of:
Acceptance criteria