docs(ospo): community health rollout v2 — README, agents.md, health files

[dj4oC]

Summary

This PR is part of the Kiteworks OSPO community health rollout (kiteworks.com/opensource), applied to all ~110 public ownCloud repositories starting May 5, 2026.

• README.md: Rewritten with v2 OSPO template
  • License-specific OSPO section with Apache 2.0 migration guidance
  • Mandatory Community & Support section: GitHub Discussions, Matrix, docs, enterprise support, OSPO home
  • Contributing workflow: Rebase Early/Often, Dependabot, PGP/GPG-signed commits, DCO sign-off, GitHub Actions policy
  • Security section pointing to security.owncloud.com + YesWeHack bug bounty
  • Translations link to Transifex (owncloud project)
• agents.md (new): AI agent context file with architecture, build commands, OSPO policy constraints
• CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md (new): Redirect to https://owncloud.com/contribute/code-of-conduct/
• CONTRIBUTING.md (new): Redirect to https://owncloud.com/contribute/
• SECURITY.md (new): Redirect to https://security.owncloud.com + YesWeHack
• SUPPORT.md (new): Redirect to https://owncloud.com/contact-us/ and support channels

Test plan

• README renders correctly on GitHub (badges, sections, links)
• All health file links resolve (CODE_OF_CONDUCT, CONTRIBUTING, SECURITY, SUPPORT)
• agents.md loads correctly in Claude Code and GitHub Copilot
• License referenced in README matches actual LICENSE file in repo

---

🤖 Generated with Claude Code as part of the ownCloud OSPO rollout.
Kiteworks OSPO: https://kiteworks.com/opensource

[DeepDiver1975]

🤖 Automated review by Claude Code review agent.

Overview

This PR applies the Kiteworks OSPO community-health template v2 to docs-client-android: a rewritten README.md plus new agents.md, CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, SECURITY.md, and SUPPORT.md. The redirect-style health files are clean and the README is well structured. The substantive concerns are around license metadata accuracy and a couple of broken links / awkward wording introduced by the templated content.

Code quality / style

• The four redirect health files (CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, SECURITY.md, SUPPORT.md) are clear and consistent. Links are well-formed.
• README is much more readable than the prior version and the Getting Started commands (npm install, npm run antora-local, npm run serve) all map to real scripts in package.json. Good.
• Minor consistency nit: most links in SUPPORT.md use <...> autolink syntax, but Community discussions uses a bare URL. Wrap it in <> for consistency.

Specific suggestions

1. License metadata is inaccurate (highest priority). The README states **Current license: Not detected.** and agents.md says contributions must be compatible with **the license specified in the repository**. However, the repo's package.json declares "license": "AGPL-3.0". The license is detectable — the template's "not detected" fallback fired incorrectly here. Please set the README/agents.md to reflect AGPL-3.0.

2. Broken LICENSE links. The README License badge (](LICENSE)) and the License section (See [LICENSE](LICENSE)) both point to a LICENSE file, but no LICENSE file exists in the repo root (confirmed via the GitHub contents API; root has README, package.json, antora.yml, etc., but no LICENSE). These render as broken links and broken-link-checker (the project's own linkcheck) may flag them. Either add a LICENSE file (AGPL-3.0, matching package.json) or point the links to the canonical license source.

3. Copyleft guidance vs. actual license. agents.md warns against introducing "copyleft-licensed dependencies (GPL, AGPL, LGPL, MPL)" — but the repository itself is AGPL-3.0. As written this is confusing for an AGPL project (and this is a docs-only repo with no shipped code dependencies anyway). Consider tailoring or softening this clause for documentation repos.

4. "the the" typo in agents.md: compatible with the **the license specified in the repository** license — duplicated "the" and trailing "license" reads awkwardly. Suggest: compatible with the repository's license (AGPL-3.0).

5. README HTML comment exposes template internals: <!-- OSPO-managed README | Generated: 2026-04-16 | v2 -->. Harmless, but note the generation date (2026-04-16) predates the stated rollout start (May 5, 2026) mentioned in the body and About section — minor internal inconsistency.

Potential issues / risks

• Low risk overall — this is documentation/metadata only; no build or content-module changes.
• The agents.md "Build & Test Commands" reference npm run antora and npm run linkcheck, both of which exist in package.json — accurate.
• The Test framework: broken-link-checker and Lint: Not detected (Prettier config present) lines are accurate (.prettierrc exists; no separate lint script).
• External links (Matrix room, YesWeHack program, kiteworks.com/opensource, doc.owncloud.com, GitHub discussions) were not all live-verified here but are consistent with the standard ownCloud/Kiteworks OSPO set.

Recommendation: Address items 1 and 2 (license accuracy + broken LICENSE link) before merge, as they directly contradict the repo's actual metadata and would fail the PR's own "License referenced in README matches actual LICENSE file" test-plan checkbox. The rest are minor cleanups.

[DeepDiver1975]

🤖 Automated review by Claude Code review agent.

Overview

This PR applies the Kiteworks OSPO community-health template v2 to docs-client-android: a rewritten README.md plus new agents.md, CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, SECURITY.md, and SUPPORT.md. The redirect-style health files are clean and the README is well structured. The substantive concerns are around license metadata accuracy and a couple of broken links / awkward wording introduced by the templated content.

Code quality / style

• The four redirect health files (CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, SECURITY.md, SUPPORT.md) are clear and consistent. Links are well-formed.
• README is much more readable than the prior version and the Getting Started commands (npm install, npm run antora-local, npm run serve) all map to real scripts in package.json. Good.
• Minor consistency nit: most links in SUPPORT.md use <...> autolink syntax, but Community discussions uses a bare URL. Wrap it in <> for consistency.

Specific suggestions

1. License metadata is inaccurate (highest priority). The README states **Current license: Not detected.** and agents.md says contributions must be compatible with **the license specified in the repository**. However, the repo's package.json declares "license": "AGPL-3.0". The license is detectable — the template's "not detected" fallback fired incorrectly here. Please set the README/agents.md to reflect AGPL-3.0.

2. Broken LICENSE links. The README License badge (](LICENSE)) and the License section (See [LICENSE](LICENSE)) both point to a LICENSE file, but no LICENSE file exists in the repo root (confirmed via the GitHub contents API; root has README, package.json, antora.yml, etc., but no LICENSE). These render as broken links and broken-link-checker (the project's own linkcheck) may flag them. Either add a LICENSE file (AGPL-3.0, matching package.json) or point the links to the canonical license source.

3. Copyleft guidance vs. actual license. agents.md warns against introducing "copyleft-licensed dependencies (GPL, AGPL, LGPL, MPL)" — but the repository itself is AGPL-3.0. As written this is confusing for an AGPL project (and this is a docs-only repo with no shipped code dependencies anyway). Consider tailoring or softening this clause for documentation repos.

4. "the the" typo in agents.md: compatible with the **the license specified in the repository** license — duplicated "the" and trailing "license" reads awkwardly. Suggest: compatible with the repository's license (AGPL-3.0).

5. README HTML comment exposes template internals: <!-- OSPO-managed README | Generated: 2026-04-16 | v2 -->. Harmless, but note the generation date (2026-04-16) predates the stated rollout start (May 5, 2026) mentioned in the body and About section — minor internal inconsistency.

Potential issues / risks

• Low risk overall — this is documentation/metadata only; no build or content-module changes.
• The agents.md "Build & Test Commands" reference npm run antora and npm run linkcheck, both of which exist in package.json — accurate.
• The Test framework: broken-link-checker and Lint: Not detected (Prettier config present) lines are accurate (.prettierrc exists; no separate lint script).
• External links (Matrix room, YesWeHack program, kiteworks.com/opensource, doc.owncloud.com, GitHub discussions) were not all live-verified here but are consistent with the standard ownCloud/Kiteworks OSPO set.

Recommendation: Address items 1 and 2 (license accuracy + broken LICENSE link) before merge, as they directly contradict the repo's actual metadata and would fail the PR's own "License referenced in README matches actual LICENSE file" test-plan checkbox. The rest are minor cleanups.