I think this would, legally, necessitate more than an UNLICENSED property. npmrc file to set the registry url to be some internal server ip or wherever we want our registry. These modules would be company scoped, and our company's scope will have a setting a la a global. I'd rather npm do that for me since these things are dependencies. Right now we just copy-pasta a lot of stuff. Then we could npm install these reusable parts. I opted for UNLICENSED and 'private': true, however I do want to be able to make a private registry at some point so our team can easily break code up into clearly defined modules and use them across projects.

I agree with am creating a new node application and it's always good to start with npm init, so I did and now I have to choose a license. The license warning built into the npm itself seems to be unwarrantedly burdensome. Someone should be free, for instance, to create a GPL-only public repository, and folks should be free to use the same npm tool to publish to it. If the public repository wishes to enfore specific licenses on publish, that's that repository's business. UNLICENSED, LicenseRef-LICENSE, and SEE LICENSE IN no longer suppress the warning.įrankly, I feel I should be able to put anything I want in there and not get a warning from the npm command itself. My opinion is that there should be a valid way (no warnings) to handle this case, as we have no good options.

If we don't set a valid SPDX license (which we definitely should not), we get a license warning. If we set 'private': true, we are prevented from publishing to our private repository. To make the issue clear: we use a private NPM repository, and are publishing proprietary packages to it. The original question is still pertinent, and open to me.

Npm init