The reason the license is present is there was originally an intention to eventually migrate this library to the Python stdlib, so by dual licensing, it would be trivial to expose the same functionality under Python's license. It's my understanding that the PSF license isn't valid for projects other than Python, so only the MIT license is relevant currently.
When I proposed recently to port this to stdlib, it was dismissed, so I'm no longer anticipating contributing this to Python.
I'm going to just drop the license and keep it simple.
While the text of the
LICENSEfile is a standard MIT license,
setup.cfgclaims the “Python Software Foundation License” also applies.
Lines 13 to 14 in 2354d68
Could you please clarify the following?
keyring, either to the whole package or to some part of its sources?
AND), or as an alternative license (dual-licensed,
Ideally, these could be clarified somewhere in the sources rather than only in this issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: