Environment information

N/A

What happened?

I was looking at Biome's software license and noticed two potential problems:

1. Biome is based on Rome, but Rome attribution is not mentioned in the Biome's MIT license. (Rome's license requires attribution.) There are ROME_LICENSE files with attribution, but they seem easy to miss compared to the main LICENSE-MIT file.
   • In short, I question the quality of commit 5d8f82a1 ("chore: separate license") which was made based on @ematipico's comment on #16.
2. Biome is released with an Apache 2 license, but Rome was not. Does Rome's MIT license allow relicensing under Apache 2? (I suspect not.) If not, did Biome get permission from Rome's copyright holder to relicense under Apache 2?
   • In short, I question the quality of #745.

I think these might be problems; I am not certain. (I am not a lawyer at all.)

Expected result

I expect one of the following:

1. Rome transferred copyright to Biome. There is (potentially private) documentation of this transfer somewhere. (Depending on the terms of Rome's CLA (if any), this might include asking all open source Rome contributors (including myself) for copyright assignment/transfer.)
2. Biome's MIT license mentions the original Rome copyrights, and Biome is only licensed under MIT (not also Apache 2).

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow Biome's Code of Conduct