Re: Declaring license for autogenerated file (W3C)

2021-06-21 Thread Diego M. Rodriguez
Hi Paul and Michael, On 6/19/21 3:45 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > The upstream source (from GitHub in your case) should always be > preferred over the downstream packaging (on PyPI in your case). > Missing files, generated files, extra cruft and other things are > common problems with the downstream

Re: Declaring license for autogenerated file (W3C)

2021-06-18 Thread Paul Wise
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 11:09 AM Diego M. Rodriguez wrote: > Actually, while the upstream tarball (from PyPI) does not include the > unicode.xml file, upon closer inspection upstream does include it in > their GitHub releases. If using the release for packaging is technically > viable (looks like

Re: Declaring license for autogenerated file (W3C)

2021-06-18 Thread Michael Lustfield
On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 12:53:37 +0200 "Diego M. Rodriguez" wrote: > [...] > Actually, while the upstream tarball (from PyPI) does not include the > unicode.xml file, upon closer inspection upstream does include it in > their GitHub releases. If using the release for packaging is technically >

Re: Declaring license for autogenerated file (W3C)

2021-06-18 Thread Diego M. Rodriguez
Hello Michael and Sam, and many thanks for the quick and detailed feedback and observations. On 6/17/21 7:23 PM, Michael Lustfield wrote: > From my perspective, you did a relatively adequate job documenting the oddity > in > d/copyright. It seems that this file rarely ever (never) changes, so

Re: Declaring license for autogenerated file (W3C)

2021-06-17 Thread Michael Lustfield
Please forgive any screwy formatting; I'm trying out evolution again... On Thu, 2021-06-17 at 14:28 +0200, Diego M. Rodriguez wrote: > Hello, > > as part of packaging "pylatexenc" [1], I'm unsure on how to properly > declare the license attribution of one of the files in the upstream package. >

Re: Declaring license for autogenerated file (W3C)

2021-06-17 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Diego" == Diego M Rodriguez writes: Diego> ("pylatexenc/latexencode/_uni2latexmap_xml.py" [2]) is: # Diego> Automatically generated from unicode.xml by gen_xml_dic.py Diego> although the "unicode.xml" file itself it is not included in Diego> the release tarball. It is

Declaring license for autogenerated file (W3C)

2021-06-17 Thread Diego M. Rodriguez
Hello, as part of packaging "pylatexenc" [1], I'm unsure on how to properly declare the license attribution of one of the files in the upstream package. Upstream mentions that the file ("pylatexenc/latexencode/_uni2latexmap_xml.py" [2]) is: # Automatically generated from unicode.xml by