npm packages bb-app and @get-bb/plugin-sdk are published without a license field or LICENSE file (repo is MIT) #6662

Summary

The npm packages bb-app and @get-bb/plugin-sdk are published without a license field in package.json and without a LICENSE file in the tarball, while the repository itself is MIT. Tools that audit dependency licenses (license-checker, pnpm licenses, SBOM generators) therefore report both packages as "UNLICENSED"/unknown, and downstream projects that vendor or redistribute them cannot show the required MIT notice from the package alone.

Versions and environment

• bb-app 0.48.1 and @get-bb/plugin-sdk 0.6.79 / 0.6.104 from npm
• Linux x64, Node 24.22.1, pnpm 12.16.1

Steps to reproduce

npm view bb-app license            # prints nothing
npm view @get-bb/plugin-sdk license   # prints nothing
npm pack bb-app@0.48.1 && tar tzf bb-app-0.48.1.tgz | grep -i license   # no match

Expected vs actual

Expected: both packages declare "license": "MIT" and ship the repository LICENSE file (npm includes LICENSE automatically when it is in the package directory or listed in files).

Actual: npm view … license prints nothing for both packages; the tarballs contain no license file.

Evidence

• Repository license: https://github.com/get-bb/bb/blob/a1bf55b6a04c7948ae5ae0dcfcbdec27d2b507a2/LICENSE
• packages/bb-app/package.json and packages/plugin-sdk/package.json at the same commit have no license field.

I think the fix is a one-line "license": "MIT" in both manifests plus copying LICENSE into the published packages. Happy to open a PR if a maintainer signs off.

AGENT GENERATED