Re: [PATCH 2/2] tools: Update the license specifiers

[Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>]

Hi Tom,

On 4/29/25 3:52 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 03:28:35PM +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On 4/29/25 3:15 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Recent versions of Python complain about the license being in the
>>
>> I believe this isn't related to Python but rather setuptools.
>>
>> setuptools 77.0.3 and later support PEP-639 which recommends to ditch the
>> License :: classifier for a license property.
>>
>> The issue is that this license property also changed in PEP-639, with
>> something that isn't compatible with pre-PEP-639.
>>
>> Therefore we need to bump the minimum requirement for the setuptools
>> dependency in the various pyproject.toml to 77.0.3 or later.
>>
>> I'm also wondering if we don't need to add a license-files property (also
>> PEP-639) to comply with the GPL-2.0-or-later which requires to provide a
>> copy of the license.
> 
> Thanks for digging in to this more. Is there not some way to both meet
> the PEP and utilize SPDX?
> 

AFAICT, the license field is for the SPDX identifier.

Not all licenses require you to provide the license to comply with it I 
guess? But my reading of GPL-2.0-or-later makes me believe that we need 
to. You would then have the license file(s) included when license-files 
contains a file that is found at the root of the python project? I 
believe that the default value for license-files is ['LICEN[CS]E*', 
'COPYING*', 'NOTICE*', 'AUTHORS*'] so it could be automatically included 
(and thus the license-files not be explicit) if the license file(s) is 
named like that.

It isn't necessarily a big deal (IANAL) to not have the license shipped 
if we don't plan on pushing those to pypi or share sdist/wheels through 
another mean (e.g. GitLab/GitHub releases generated with `python3 -m 
build`)?

I am not sure exactly what you meant by "both meet the PEP and utilize 
SPDX" as I believe they aren't related here? I mean, license property is 
the way to define the SPDX identifier in PEP-639, but the missing 
license-files doesn't have anything to do with SPDX I believe? Just that 
it wouldn't be complying (I believe, still haven't become a lawyer in 
the last few paragraphs) with the license itself if the license file 
isn't shipped.

What I meant is that in order to use the license property, we need to 
bump the setuptools version dependency in pyproject.toml so we're sure 
we're building with a recent enough setuptools.

Let me know if something isn't clear, I just happened to have had a 
glance at the PEP this morning for another project, so I am as confident 
as someone who spent 5min reading a spec :)

Cheers,
Quentin