The published @browserbasehq/sdk package omits the "license" field in its package.json. The package ships an Apache-2.0 LICENSE file, but the missing field causes npm/pnpm/yarn license tooling to report the package as Unknown — which trips dependency license audits in CI and forces consumers to maintain explicit allowlist exceptions.
Reproduction
$ pnpm view @browserbasehq/sdk@2.10.0 license
# (no output)
$ jq .license node_modules/@browserbasehq/sdk/package.json
null
$ head -1 node_modules/@browserbasehq/sdk/LICENSE
Apache License
Suggested fix
Add the field to package.json:
{
"license": "Apache-2.0"
}
Same license you already ship in the LICENSE file, just declared in the manifest so license tooling can pick it up.
Context
We use the SDK in production. Happy to send a small PR if helpful.
The published
@browserbasehq/sdkpackage omits the"license"field in itspackage.json. The package ships an Apache-2.0LICENSEfile, but the missing field causes npm/pnpm/yarn license tooling to report the package asUnknown— which trips dependency license audits in CI and forces consumers to maintain explicit allowlist exceptions.Reproduction
$ pnpm view @browserbasehq/sdk@2.10.0 license # (no output) $ jq .license node_modules/@browserbasehq/sdk/package.json null $ head -1 node_modules/@browserbasehq/sdk/LICENSE Apache LicenseSuggested fix
Add the field to
package.json:{ "license": "Apache-2.0" }Same license you already ship in the
LICENSEfile, just declared in the manifest so license tooling can pick it up.Context
We use the SDK in production. Happy to send a small PR if helpful.