Hi, I wanted to ask if it would somehow affect the licensing terms and how you would feel if I made a public repo(fork) where the following GitHub actions work with the OSS PactBroker (no need to use PactFlow) https://github.com/pactflow/actions I understand it's an unusual question, but I wouldn't want to proceed in conflict with the PactFlow org.

most would just provide the changes upstream, to the original repo. which would be good to be honest as its a worthy feature req

Yep, we'd support a PR to support the OSS broker. No need to maintain 2 versions then

All licenses are MIT in there and the repo was originally gifted to PactFlow from an external contrib. https://github.com/pactflow/actions/pull/37#issue-1988611137 Beth asked about the OSS broker support here

• The actions don’t accept a password, but most of these work for the Pact Broker as well as Pactflow. Is there any reason to not support a password?

Fantastic, I'll propose changes once it's prepared It's great that you're not forcing the community into pacflow, thanks for that

🙂, our pleasure, thanks for the kind feedback. we love oss 👇 https://pactflow.io/blog/why-build-an-open-source-company/