Sure. If it's what we ship in the "source release", then in python we don't include the whole repo. We only include the files to run and modify the project.
Examples for Hamilton are not packaged or required to run or modify the project. This is by default how python packages work; the is no compilation, and once installed locally you can modify things as you wish because it's an interpreted language. That's also why we have so many packages in this repo. Does that make sense? Otherwise the default view that the repo is the source release doesn't make sense with how we have structured our repository; there is so much other stuff here that isn't required to run or build the project. But if the Apache tooling assumes this, then we'll just have to say what other MIT and Apache licensed things we have in the source release then... On Sat, Sep 6, 2025, 1:43 PM pjfanning (via GitHub) <[email protected]> wrote: > > pjfanning commented on issue #1368: > URL: > https://github.com/apache/hamilton/issues/1368#issuecomment-3263192713 > > It is not just about the license - it affects the LICENSE file that > Hamilton ships in its source releases. All 3rd party source code needs to > be mentioned in including what license type applies. For non Apache > licenses on 3rd party source, we need to embed the full license text. > > > -- > This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. > To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the > URL above to go to the specific comment. > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: > [email protected] > >
