use rapidfuzz instead of fuzzywuzzy #1
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
FuzzyWuzzy is GPLv2 licensed which would force you to licence the whole project under GPLv2. I had the same problem on one of my projects and so I wrote rapidfuzz which is implementing the same algorithm but is based on a version of fuzzywuzzy that was MIT Licensed and is therefor MIT Licensed aswell, so it can be used in here without forcing a License change. As a nice bonus it is fully implemented in C++ and comes with a few Algorithmic improvements making it between 5 and 100 times faster than FuzzyWuzzy.