add license title and fix short identifier #38
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -39,14 +39,14 @@ | |
| long_description=long_description, | ||
| keywords='dict, dictionary, mapping, bidirectional, bijection, bijective, injective, two-way, 2-way, double, inverse, reverse', | ||
| url='https://github.com/jab/bidict', | ||
| license='ISC', | ||
| packages=['bidict'], | ||
| package_data=dict(bidict=['VERSION']), | ||
| zip_safe=True, | ||
| classifiers=[ | ||
| 'Development Status :: 4 - Beta', | ||
| 'Intended Audience :: Developers', | ||
| 'License :: OSI Approved :: ISC License', | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. https://pypi.python.org/pypi?%3Aaction=list_classifiers lists the classifier as I had it, with There was a problem hiding this comment. Sure. The second commit has the to the relevant authoritative sources in the extended description:
Sorry that I didn't make this clearer in the PR's main description text. I'll add it now, for future reference. By the way, I did submit a PR to fix the acronym in the list of classifiers |
||
| 'Natural Language :: English', | ||
| 'Operating System :: OS Independent', | ||
| 'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.7', | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking through the first page of results for https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=filename%3Asetup.py+license+iscl&type=Code&ref=searchresults I see plenty of
license='ISCL'as well aslicense='ISC'andlicense='ISC License (ISCL)'. Can you provide a reference for why your proposed change is right and the others are wrong? Another quick search I just did for "setup.py license values" turned up http://the-hitchhikers-guide-to-packaging.readthedocs.io/en/latest/creation.html which actually advises thatlicenseshould be set to the filename containing the license, which is news to me.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am only vaguely familiar with publishing packages on PyPI, so I can't comment on what value the license field should have on setup.py.
It is true that "ISCL" is prevalent, and I intend to work to reduce that. Right now, I am on a mission to add the ISC license title to the license files, though, so that step will have to wait a bit :)
As for justification: as I mentioned in the other comment, the correct short identifier for the ISC license is simply "ISC". Given that most of the licenses that include an acronym do so because their full name doesn't include it, and many don't include an acronym at all, I supposed it would make sense to omit the redundant "(ISC)". That said, I have no strong objections to keeping it, if you prefer that -- but if so, the acronym should be "ISC", not "ISCL".
I realize this is not coherent with others like GPL, AFL, etc, but the license identifiers have worse incongruences than that :) In fact, if we were to insist on ISCL, then we should also advocate for MITL, BSDL, etc, which I don't believe would be practical.