Inaccurate License file

[twastvedt]

In the Readme it says the package is licensed under PSF (makes sense) but there's also a LICENSE file with the MIT license in it. I think the latter is driving this project being reported in github and nuget.org as being under the MIT license. Should the LICENSE file instead have a copy of PSF in it?

[henon]

Good question. The project uses PythonNET which is under MIT and may or may not (depending on the nuget) contain binaries of Python under PSF but the code of this project is MIT itself. So I guess the claim about the package being PSF is wrong I guess? What do you think it should be?

[twastvedt]

Super not a lawyer :), but I think that the license file should include the MIT license for this project and then also any attribution required by the licenses of the included work. So, the MIT license and copyright line for PythonNET and something for Python (Python 2.0 license? PSF 2?)

[twastvedt]

But thanks, that also answers my question on attribution for this project, I think. In lieu of the above, I can attribute this package as MIT, then also include attribution for PythonNET and Python separately

[twastvedt]

Hmm, actually, I'm not sure you need to include at least PythonNET in the license file. It's declared as a NuGet dependency. I've only seen bundling of sub-licenses in the license file when the project embeds the dependency without visibility from external tools like nuget. Not sure where that leaves Python itself though.