1 files changed, 93 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/licenses/generic/BUILD b/licenses/generic/BUILD
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ba95d52
--- /dev/null
+++ b/licenses/generic/BUILD
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# Copyright 2022 The Bazel Authors. All rights reserved.
+#
+# Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
+# you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
+# You may obtain a copy of the License at
+#
+#    http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+#
+# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+# limitations under the License.
+
+"""license_kind()s for generic license identifiers."""
+
+# This is a set of license_kind declarations based on the legacy Bazel license
+# identifiers.
+#
+# Projects using one of these licenses may reference the license_kind targets
+# here.  For example, their BUILD file might contain:
+#
+#   package(default_applicable_licenses = [":license"])
+#
+#   license(
+#       name = "license",
+#       license_kinds = ["@rules_license//licenses/generic:notice"],
+#       license_text = "LICENSE",
+#   )
+#
+
+# These licenses represent the LicenseType enum originally baked into Bazel. See
+# https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/blob/fcfca6157b6de903ab942cef2fc460bf8c8da6ed/src/main/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/packages/License.java#L59
+#
+# Packages may create license rules that use these license_kinds when the
+# package has provided a LICENSE file, but the text in it  does not match any
+# of the well known licenses in @rules_license//licenses/spdx:*
+load("@rules_license//rules:license_kind.bzl", "license_kind")
+
+filegroup(
+    name = "standard_package",
+    srcs = ["BUILD"],
+)
+
+package(
+    default_applicable_licenses = ["//:license"],
+    default_visibility = ["//visibility:public"],
+)
+
+# "none" should be used for packages which are distributed with no license of
+# any kind. You can use this no-op license as a positive indication that the
+# code's license terms were reviewed, so that linters will not flag it later as
+# unreviewed.
+license_kind(
+    name = "none",
+)
+
+# See: https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#unencumbered
+license_kind(
+    name = "unencumbered",
+)
+
+# See: https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#notice
+license_kind(
+    name = "notice",
+    conditions = [
+        "notice",
+    ],
+)
+
+# See: https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#permissive
+license_kind(
+    name = "permissive",
+    conditions = [
+        "permissive",
+    ],
+)
+
+# See: https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#reciprocal
+license_kind(
+    name = "reciprocal",
+    conditions = [
+        "reciprocal",
+    ],
+)
+
+# See: https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#ByExceptionOnly
+license_kind(
+    name = "by_exception_only",
+    conditions = [
+        "by_exception_only",
+    ],
+)