4 ms·

https://pypi.org/policy/terms-of-use/ https://pypi.org/policy/terms-of-use/ Seems like PyPi explicitly allows this behavior: "If I upload Content covered by a

https://pypi.org/policy/terms-of-use/ https://pypi.org/policy/terms-of-use/ Seems like PyPi explicitly allows this behavior: "If I upload Content covered by a royalty-free license included with such Content, giving the PSF the right to copy and redistribute such Content unmodified on PyPI as I have uploaded it, with no further action required by the PSF (an "Included License"), I represent and warrant that the uploaded Content meets all the requirements necessary for free redistribution by the PSF and any mirroring facility, public or private, under the Included License. If I upload Content other than under an Included License, then I grant the PSF and all other users of the web site an irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license to reproduce, distribute, transmit, display, perform, and publish the Content, including in digital form."

aragilar 3y ago
There's a popular package in a subfield (which I'm not going to name) which disallows redistribution in its license, but is uploaded by its author to PyPI. I wonder how that interacts with PyPI (given that it has a license, so would hit the first clause, but it doesn't allow redistribution, so would seem to be under the second clause, which contradicts the original license to users), and if the DMCA could be validly used to take down the GitHub repositories? It would also be interesting to see how many other packages have such issues.