Standardize Trust-Based Commercial Licensing terminology - #4307
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 3 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (20)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![claude[bot]](https://avatars.github.com/in/1236702?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Review summaryThis is a clean, self-contained docs/terminology PR (pure Markdown, no code changes). I checked it for consistency, broken links/anchors, and unintended meaning changes. Findings:
Looked good:
No security, performance, or code-correctness concerns — this PR touches no executable code. |
size-limit report 📦
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.github.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Review SummaryThis is a clean, low-risk, documentation-only PR that standardizes public-facing licensing terminology on "ShakaCode Trust-Based Commercial Licensing" across README/docs files. No source code, config, or CI behavior is touched. What I checked:
Minor observations (left as inline comments, non-blocking):
No bugs, security issues, or performance concerns — this PR doesn't touch executable code. |
Review summaryPure documentation-terminology PR: replaces "friendly license model" / "Pro license model" / "License-Optional Model" with "ShakaCode Trust-Based Commercial Licensing" across docs, README files, and the generated I spot-checked every hunk against its Two precision issues survived verification (both real, low severity — docs-only, no functional risk):
Neither blocks merge; both are easy follow-up wording fixes. |
ReviewDocs-only PR that renames the public "friendly license model" / "Pro Licensed" copy to "ShakaCode Trust-Based Commercial Licensing" across README, docs/, package READMEs, and the generated Two small terminology-consistency gaps survived the sweep — neither is a functional bug, both are quick follow-ups:
Neither blocks merge, but since this PR's explicit goal is standardizing the public licensing copy, worth a follow-up pass to catch the remaining "subscription" wording (also present in |
|
Review: Standardize Trust-Based Commercial Licensing terminology This is a docs-only terminology pass — no application code changed, so no security/performance concerns beyond content accuracy. Found a few consistency issues worth addressing. 1. Leftover "Subscription" wording in 2. New brand term isn't reflected in the authoritative legal docs Per the PR description this separation ("Keeps legal documents and EULA references separate from the umbrella licensing copy") looks intentional, but it does mean a reader following a "see the license for details" link from the newly-branded docs won't find the brand name or matching terminology in the actual legal text. Worth a sanity check with whoever owns the EULA on whether the terms should be reconciled. 3. Not a bug introduced by this PR, but worth calling out in the PR description so reviewers aren't surprised by the unrelated-looking diff, and worth confirming Otherwise |
Review summaryThis is a clean, well-scoped documentation-terminology PR — replacing "friendly license model" / "Pro license model" / "subscription" phrasing with "ShakaCode Trust-Based Commercial Licensing" across public-facing docs, README files, and the generated Verified as sound:
Consistency gaps found (not touched by this PR, but they contradict its own stated goal of standardizing public licensing copy):
Left one non-blocking inline nit on new prose in |
ReviewThis PR standardizes public-facing Pro licensing copy from "friendly license model" / "Pro license model" / "License-Optional Model" to "ShakaCode Trust-Based Commercial Licensing" across I checked the diff line-by-line, traced anchor/heading renames for broken links, diffed the two generated Findings
Notes (not findings, for context)
Overall this is a low-risk, well-scoped docs change; only the |
Greptile SummaryThis PR standardizes all public-facing licensing copy from "Friendly license model" / "Pro License Model" / "License-Optional Model" to the new umbrella term ShakaCode Trust-Based Commercial Licensing, and sharpens "without a license" to "without a license token" for precision. The changes are applied consistently across 20 files including the main README, Pro docs hub, installation guide, FAQ, gem and npm package READMEs, and the compiled
Confidence Score: 4/5Safe to merge — all changes are documentation copy updates with no code execution impact. The licensing terminology replacements are applied uniformly across all 20 files and the new phrasing is internally consistent. The only uncertainty is whether the RSC clientReferences content added to the compiled llms-full*.txt files is also present in the authoritative source docs; if those source docs were updated in a sibling batch PR the compiled files are fine, but if they weren't the next regeneration could silently drop the additions. llms-full.txt and llms-full-pro.txt — verify that the new RSC clientReferences section and renumbered mistakes exist in their source .md files (rsc-troubleshooting.md, etc.) so a future compilation does not revert them. Important Files Changed
Flowchart%%{init: {'theme': 'neutral'}}%%
flowchart TD
A[User installs react_on_rails_pro] --> B{Deployment environment?}
B -->|Development / Test / CI-CD / Staging| C[No license token required]
B -->|Production| D[Paid license required]
C --> E[App runs in unlicensed mode\nLogs license status — does not block]
D --> F{License token configured?\nREACT_ON_RAILS_PRO_LICENSE}
F -->|Yes| G[Licensed — full Pro features enabled]
F -->|No| H[Runs in unlicensed mode\nLogs warning — does not block]
H --> I[Purchase at pro.reactonrails.com\nor contact justin@shakacode.com]
I --> F
%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {"darkMode": true, "background": "#0d1117", "primaryColor": "#21262d", "primaryTextColor": "#e6edf3", "primaryBorderColor": "#8b949e", "lineColor": "#8b949e", "textColor": "#e6edf3", "edgeLabelBackground": "#161b22", "actorBkg": "#21262d", "actorBorder": "#8b949e", "actorTextColor": "#e6edf3", "actorLineColor": "#8b949e", "signalColor": "#8b949e", "signalTextColor": "#e6edf3", "noteBkgColor": "#373320", "noteBorderColor": "#d4a72c", "noteTextColor": "#f0e6c0", "labelBoxBkgColor": "#21262d", "labelBoxBorderColor": "#8b949e", "labelTextColor": "#e6edf3", "loopTextColor": "#e6edf3", "activationBkgColor": "#30363d", "activationBorderColor": "#8b949e"}}}%%
flowchart TD
A[User installs react_on_rails_pro] --> B{Deployment environment?}
B -->|Development / Test / CI-CD / Staging| C[No license token required]
B -->|Production| D[Paid license required]
C --> E[App runs in unlicensed mode\nLogs license status — does not block]
D --> F{License token configured?\nREACT_ON_RAILS_PRO_LICENSE}
F -->|Yes| G[Licensed — full Pro features enabled]
F -->|No| H[Runs in unlicensed mode\nLogs warning — does not block]
H --> I[Purchase at pro.reactonrails.com\nor contact justin@shakacode.com]
I --> F
|
ReviewThis PR standardizes React on Rails Pro's public licensing copy on the term "ShakaCode Trust-Based Commercial Licensing," replacing prior phrasing ("friendly license model," "Pro license model," "License-Optional Model") across READMEs, docs, and the generated No findings survived review. Checks performed:
This is a well-scoped, mechanical terminology change with no correctness, security, or performance concerns. |
1 participant
Closes #4286
Summary
Validation
git diff --checkpassed on changed files.pnpm dlx prettier@3.6.2 --checkpassed on changed Markdown files.Honest License,friendly license model, orPro license modelleftovers; historicalLicense-Optional Attribution Modelrelease/changelog entries remain as historical records.bundle exec rubocopis blocked by unrelated existing offenses underreact_on_rails/spike/3313_prism_gemfile_rewriter/.Batch Context
Batch:
ror-docs-4286-4297-20260701.