I've got a package.json that's expecting a SPDX-approved license acronym, but I can't find one that means 'proprietary commercial license, all rights reserved'.

Is there one for non-FOSS, where I want to specify that I want to allow no reuse?

  • 1
    There are some problems with your question, as it is currently written. 1. All copyrights are always reserved. 2. "Proprietary commercial" is a characteristic of many licenses. 3. There might not actually be an acronym for what you are requesting. – Robert Harvey Jun 5 '15 at 5:11
  • 2
    @RobertHarvey 1. Many software systems (eg, npm) require a license to be set explicitly. 2 and 3. Yes, the answer handles that 3. – mikemaccana Jul 12 '15 at 20:44
  • 1
    Since this is closed I can't give another answer. But according to [1] you should set license: "UNLICENSED",. [1] github.com/npm/npm/issues/8918 – Jason Axelson Oct 2 '15 at 20:04
  • 1
    might not actually [have] an acronym for what you are requesting is still a perfectly valid answer to a perfectly valid question. – Qix - MONICA WAS MISTREATED Sep 15 '16 at 4:51
  • 1
    The equivalent for composer.json is "license": "proprietary" according to the docs. – Quinn Comendant Oct 16 '19 at 19:58

As of npm 3.10 you have to use UNLICENSED:

{ "license": "UNLICENSED"}


{ "license": "SEE LICENSE IN <filename>"}

The value of license must either one of the options above or the identifier for the license from this list of SPDX licenses. Any other value is not valid.

The following is no longer valid for current versions of npm

For npm versions before 3.10 you may use:

{ "license" : "LicenseRef-LICENSE" }

Then include a LICENSE file at the top level of the package. It could be as short as:

(c) Copyright 2015 person or company, all rights reserved.

But you might want to be more explicit about what is not allowed.

  • 17
    "all rights reserved", in that context, means EXACTLY what it says. NO permissions have been given. It is a legal term of art. Think of it as a magickal incantation that must be uttered in precisely that form to invoke the Law Demons. – John R. Strohm Jun 5 '15 at 20:45
  • 5
    npm recommends to set { "license": "UNLICENSED"} "if you do not wish to grant others the right to use a private or unpublished package under any terms". That's an even easier option than an explicit license file. – Jörn Zaefferer Sep 28 '15 at 9:49
  • 2
    setting the license to UNLICENSED still triggers license should be a valid SPDX license expression for me – cdmckay Oct 9 '15 at 13:33
  • 19
    You can also just set "private": true and it won't bother you about including a license. – spex May 25 '17 at 20:31
  • 13
    Also make sure not to confuse the npm-recommended "UNLICENSED" with the SPDX compliant identifier "Unlicense", which is the exact opposite of "all rights reserved". – Levente Huszko Oct 17 '17 at 11:04

This does not exactly answer your question, but what about:

  "license": "Proprietary",
  "private": true,
  • 1
    This answer reads more like a comment. – Mael Mar 13 '18 at 7:40
  • 2
    This answer also does what is needed: stops npm complaining about licenses, so it is a good one in my book. – Malcolm Holmes Apr 26 '18 at 9:20
  • 1
    Using "Proprietary" as the license type is not a supported SPDX type and will generate an error unless you also specify "private": true. That in turn prevents you from using NPM as a distribution channel for your proprietary package. So choose the answer above by @craig – abd3721 Nov 1 '18 at 21:18
  • 1
    To me, the following DOES answer the question and gives a full example of how to do it. I suggest, @WooYek, updating your answer. ` { "name": "my-descriptive-name", "description": "yeah, what it says", "repository": "npm/npm", "license": "Copyright Your Company 2019, all rights reserved.", "private": true, "dependencies": { "request": "^2.88.0", "request-promise-native": "^1.0.5" } }` – Kevin Buchs Jan 15 '19 at 23:36
  • For brevity I did not want to put the usual copyright stuff. Just the bare minimum required for a packaged to be treated as proprietary software. – WooYek Jan 17 '19 at 7:38

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.