Migrate to PEP-639 and add GPL license text to PYPI package #20
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
The license field in PEP-639 is now an SPDX license expression.[1] Note that while the gpl.txt license file text is the one of the GPL-3.0-or-later, FATtools/__init__.py and FATtools/NTFS/__init__.py (the only two files with a mention of GPL) only mention "GPLv3" meaning GPL-3.0-only is expected, otherwise "GPLv3+" or "or later" or "or any later version" should have been written. I'm not a lawyer but that is my understanding of the license. Because `python -m build` (used in GitHub workflow) creates a venv with the requirements, it'll build with a recent setuptools. However, to make sure it builds with a recent enough setuptools, hardcode the minimum version that supports PEP-639: 77.0.3.[2] Finally, following the recommendations of the setuptools project itself[3], let's remove the "License ::" classifier. [1] https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/guides/writing-pyproject-toml/#license [2] https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/guides/writing-pyproject-toml/#id9 [3] https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/guides/licensing-examples-and-user-scenarios/#basic-example Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>
It is usually expected from open-source software to ship the license with the code. Build systems like the Yocto Project expects some license files to be provided to be able to monitor changes to licenses used by the project it's building. My understanding is that the GPL-3.0-or-later requires you to provide the license text with verbatim source code (which would be the sdist package uploaded to PYPI I believe), c.f. 4. Conveying Verbatim Copies: You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and [...] give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program. Let's add the GPL license text to the python package. Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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.
This migrates the build system to use PEP-639. If you look into the logs of the last few releases, you'll probably see something like:
So migrating to PEP-639 fixes that.
NOTE THAT THIS IS "CHANGING" THE LICENSE FROM GPLv3 to GPL-3.0-only. While the text in
gpl.txtlicense seems to allow GPL-3.0-or-later, it only does so if the source code says "or any later version" somewhere. The only two places where the GPL is mentioned in the source code is in FATtools/init.py and FATtools/NTFS/init.py where it is NOT mentioned. Therefore, from my non-lawyer perspective, this means the project is under GPL-3.0-only and not GPL-3.0-or-later. Note that SPDX does not recognize GPLv3, it's either GPL-3.0-only or GPL-3.0-or-later, c.f. https://spdx.org/licenses/While at it, my reading of the GPL-3.0-or-later license (though I still am not a lawyer) requires us to ship the license text with source code, so this fixes this non-compliance by adding the gpl text to the build package.
I haven't setup a test account on PYPI to verify that this does what it says it does, but locally installing the sdist and wheel packages copy the gpl license file in my
venv(venv/lib/python3.13/site-packages/fattools-1.1.5.dist-info/licenses/gpl.txtandvenv/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/fattools-1.1.5.dist-info/licenses/gpl.txt), so this seems ok?