chore: license

[dcavalcante]

The Learn content was moved out of nodejs/nodejs.org into this standalone repository, but nodejs/learn currently does not contain a root license file.

nodejs/nodejs.org is MIT-licensed, so this copies its LICENSE verbatim.

Having the license in the standalone repository makes the applicable terms explicit for contributors and downstream consumers of the Learn content. In my case, assembling an epub book version of it: dcavalcante/nodejs-docs-ebook

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
nodejs-learn	Ready	Preview	Oct 3, 2026 11:30am UTC

[github-actions]

👋 Codeowner Review Request

The following codeowners have been identified for the changed files:

Team reviewers: @nodejs/nodejs-website

Please review the changes when you have a chance. Thank you! 🙏

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🟢 Approval recommended

The license matches the stated source and is correctly linked from the README.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: None

What changed in this PR

Adds an explicit root MIT license for the standalone Learn repository.

Changes:

• Adds the MIT license copied from nodejs/nodejs.org.
• Links the license from the README.

File	Description
README.md	Documents and links the repository license.
LICENSE	Adds the MIT license text.

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[araujogui]

LGTM however we could add private and license fields on package.json too

[dcavalcante]

LGTM however we could add private and license fields on package.json too

Good point.. While adding private and license, I noticed package.json currently has no name prop, while package-lock.json had "name": "learn". Running npm install --package-lock-only from my checkout (my local folder is named nodejs-learn) caused npm to rewrite that lockfile name to "nodejs-learn"..

Would it make sense to add "name": "learn" to package.json in this PR as well, so the package metadata is explicit and the lockfile stays stable regardless of the checkout directory?

[AugustinMauroy]

License field seem good idea but private field should be another pr

[dcavalcante]

License field seem good idea but private field should be another pr

So.. I guess the name field is another PR too

[AugustinMauroy]

Private and name can be in the same pr

[dcavalcante]

Private and name can be in the same pr

agreed, done!