Update License on pypi.org

[AvercromXD]

On the pypi.org page, it says under license "Apache Software License". Since this project uses MIT this should probably be updated.

[adebardo]

Hello,

First of all, thank you for the work you do, your project is used by a large number of us.
In order to be able to use it with confidence, we would need to clarify the licensing aspect. It appears that you have chosen the Apache 2.0 license (https://github.com/python/importlib_metadata/blob/main/pyproject.toml#L24
), which is an excellent choice. Unfortunately, to remove any remaining ambiguity, it would be necessary to add the missing files (license, notice, and copyright headers) to clearly define the situation.

Thank you for taking my feedback into account.

Kind regards

[jaraco]

On the pypi.org page, it says under license "Apache Software License". Since this project uses MIT this should probably be updated.

What makes you think this project uses MIT?

[AvercromXD]

When I opened this issue, the pyproject.toml still said MIT license. So I guess since this has now been fixed in the pyproject.toml, my part of the issue at least is resolved. But as @adebardo points out, a license.md would probably remove any ambiguity.

[jaraco]

When I opened this issue, the pyproject.toml still said MIT license.

I see. I was surprised to hear this; because I was careful to avoid the wrong license. I double-checked, and I did maintain the Apache-2.0 license when merging the changes from skeleton (95ecf2a). My guess is you saw the upstream commit (jaraco/skeleton@d2b8d77) and presumed that was the effect in this repo, even though that code never appeared in the main branch.

In order to be able to use it with confidence, we would need to clarify the licensing aspect. It appears that you have chosen the Apache 2.0 license (https://github.com/python/importlib_metadata/blob/main/pyproject.toml#L24)

That is correct. This project has used the Apache 2.0 license since its inception.

), which is an excellent choice. Unfortunately, to remove any remaining ambiguity, it would be necessary to add the missing files (license, notice, and copyright headers) to clearly define the situation.

I disagree that the license file is necessary. In the skeleton project, I document the motivations to reduce the amount of boilerplate managed across hundreds of repos. In jaraco/skeleton#174, I articulate specific motivations in attempting to reduce the amount of boilerplate in licensing. In particular, I'd like to in a single place for each project (and for coherent projects, provide a suitable default, requiring zero config), stipulate the license and let that stipulation reflect in the packaging. I argue that for any well-known license, the complete text of the license need not be included in each file or each repository, but may be instead referenced. And to amplify this assertion, it's clear that not having a copyright notice or copyrighting entity or copy of the license in every file has been acceptable for years.

I contend that a single, unambiguous, inherently consistent declaration of the license for the project is much clearer than a (possibly modified) copy of the license in the repo along with other declarations that are expected to match. This unambiguous declaration is reinforced by the mechanical injection of the license text into the public distributions (and reflected in the "license" metadata exposed by PyPI).

There are still some weaknesses I'm working to address in coherent-oss/system#24.

I hope that clarifies the situation thoroughly. The license is unambigously Apache 2.0.