Request to restore the license file

[jaraco]

I received an email from the PSF:

I've been advised by PSF counsel that removal of the MIT License text from the setuptools repository is violation of that license (its only requirement in fact).

Restore the license file at your earliest opportunity.

[jaraco]

Additionally, from @tiran in #4992:

Breaking hermetic builds and introducing cyclic dependencies is not acceptable.

The removal of the license file from git and sdists is in violation of my contributions to setuptools and setuptools' license. You have until 2025-05-16 AOE to restore the license file.

To be absolute clear here: I am not asking you politely to please, please consider restoring the license file.

I'm telling you that you MUST restore the license file ASAP. There is zero room for debate or backtalk. Your actions are in violation of setuptools' license and my rights as a contributor to setuptools and distutils. I'm taking OSS licenses very serious and will NOT accept any objection.

A bunch of people including me have tried to convince you on multiple occasions over the past few weeks. You have been ignoring everybody. I hope that a direct, point-blank demand will make you understand how serious your violation is.

[jaraco]

Clearly there's a lot of consternation and misunderstanding of my motives and actions. I don't believe that the license has been removed and that it continues to be in force. Nevertheless, in order to comply with the request and honor the alleged violation, I'll restore the copy of the license in the repo while I work with the community to devise a sustainable and compliant approach.

[pajod]

there's a lot of misunderstanding

The License itself suggests the distinctive terms copyright notice and permission notice to unambiguously refer to what exactly shall be included -- conceptually distinctive from the fact that those obligations remain in force anyway.
Probably want to stick to something verbose like those terms from now on, so an observed removal of one is not rebutted with an orthogonal statement about the other.

[graingert]

Note that there's also no "above copyright notice" this needs to be included also