Closed rlgloden closed 1 month ago
We can just remove it. I'll replace it with something that isn't AGPL.
(It's just an example project that we resolve during the test suite.)
Again ... sorry for such a silly bother!!!
This was actually really helpful for me in the Fedora package, as pretix
has additional custom/nonstandard terms (“exceptions”) on top of the AGPL. Even though plain AGPL-3.0-only
code is acceptable in Fedora, I was having to use a modified source archive with the contents of ecosystem/pretix/
removed while waiting for legal review of pretix’s idiosyncratic extra terms. Since saleor
is just BSD-3-Clause
, I can now go back to distributing the unmodified uv
source archives in the source RPMs.
Sorry to bother for such a stupid problem but corporate scanners are flagging the AGPL license in the uv-0.4.13\ecosystem\pretix\license file in the uv source code zip ... which we have to scan before using the executable ... even if we use pip to install it.
I can't tell if pretix package is currently even used in tests yet but its existence in the source code zip is causing issues convincing our decision makers that uv isn't really AGPL and the pretix is only being used for test purposes.