Add LICENSE

[jayvdb]

No description provided.

[bochecha]

We had talked about this some time ago over at #4

Is that not enough for you?

[jayvdb]

These days, no, it isnt enough.

There is now a special field in RPM specs, %license, used for the license file. openSUSE packaging guidelines 'require' that it is used.

When I have tried to submit packages using %license README, thinking myself rather clever, I have had packages declined, and I am told I should work with upstream to get them to create a separate license file. In those cases, still a bit clever, I then create a patch which splits the README to create a new LICENSE file, so the spec can have %doc README \n %license LICENSE. That usually works.

So if you flat-out reject this PR, I should still be able to get this into openSUSE using the patch approach.

Now otoh, there are plenty of packages in openSUSE which dont use %license at all, so there are ways around it, but I am not so lucky.

Also as you can see in this patch, there is now a metadata field for the license file, which causes it to be included in the wheels.

I didnt notice that the license was included the README. If you like, I can remove it from there as part of this patch.

[bochecha]

There is now a special field in RPM specs, %license, used for the license file. openSUSE packaging guidelines 'require' that it is used.

Ah ok. The Fedora guideline require that it is used if there is a license file, as opposed to the %doc we used to use before. But it is not absolutely mandatory to have a license file in Fedora, as long as the license is clear and acceptable. The README containing the full license text fullfils that requirement just fine.

But if openSUSE has stricter requirements, then of course you have to follow them. 🙂

When I have tried to submit packages using %license README, thinking myself rather clever, I have had packages declined

As a Fedora packager myself, I would have also rejected that. 😅

So if you flat-out reject this PR

To be clear, I was not rejecting this MR. I was merely wondering whether, like me at first, you had missed the license text in the README and whether that would be enough.

I now have an answer to my question. 🙂

Also as you can see in this patch, there is now a metadata field for the license file, which causes it to be included in the wheels.

Yup, I saw that. It's great!

I didnt notice that the license was included the README. If you like, I can remove it from there as part of this patch.

I think that would make sense, yes. Maybe just keeping a sentence in the README saying this project is offered under the terms of the MIT license, see the LICENSE file for details, …

Does that make sense?

In any case, you probably want to wait for @berdario's opinion. I haven't touched this repository in a while, and had even forgotten I had merge permissions here, so I don't feel very comfortable taking the decision. 🙂