Admin: Update License #12489
Merged
Admin: Update License #12489
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
bblommers
added
the
semver: patch
bblommers
force-pushed
the
bblommers-patch-1
branch
from
3126e7b to
bd5208f
Compare
alexrashed
approved these changes
Apr 7, 2025
Member
alexrashed
left a comment
alexrashed
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks a lot for jumping on this! I'll move forward with this directly, as it seems that this is blocking dev release publishing completely right now.
Concerning Apache 1 VS 2: We explicitly state version 2 in our license file, so yes, we do use Apache License version 2.0 for this project.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
Followup to #12455
I originally made this same change in Moto, but PyPi actually rejects this
License-Expressionwith the following error:The reason: even though PEP 639 talks about the License-Expression field, that is actually a Core Metadata field. And a Core Metadata field is described as:
So the Core Metadata is part of the build output - it is not part of the original project metadata.
The Licensing Examples make it more clear that licenses should be part of the
project.licensefield, instead of setting it as a clarifier.The Moto release passes with this change.
Note
The old version (
Apache Software License) is ambiguous, so I assumed that it should be interpreted asApache 2.0. Snyk has a handy guide to explain Apache 2.0 and the difference with the original 1.0 version:https://snyk.io/articles/apache-license/