Summary
PyJHora 4.5.5 declares three different licenses across its packaging metadata and source headers. The published PyPI package carries an OSI Approved :: MIT License classifier while shipping the full AGPL-3.0 license text, so tooling and users get contradictory answers depending on where they look.
I don't think this reflects an intentional dual-licensing arrangement — it looks like drift between setup.py, _package_info.py, and the built metadata. Flagging it because it's the kind of thing that quietly misleads downstream users.
Evidence
Installed from PyPI with pip install PyJHora==4.5.5 (Python 3.12):
| Location |
Declares |
dist-info/licenses/LICENSE |
full AGPL-3.0 text |
METADATA line 6 |
License: GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE |
setup.py lines 13–23 (header) |
GNU Affero General Public License |
METADATA line 672 |
Classifier: License :: OSI Approved :: MIT License |
_package_info.py line 47 |
"License :: OSI Approved :: GNU General Public License v3 (GPLv3)" |
_package_info.py lines 6–16 (header) |
GNU General Public License (not Affero) |
GitHub's own repo detection reports AGPL-3.0, which agrees with the LICENSE file and disagrees with the PyPI classifier.
Reproduction
pip download PyJHora==4.5.5 --no-deps
# unpack the wheel, then:
grep -n "License" pyjhora-4.5.5.dist-info/METADATA | head
grep -n "License ::" jhora/_package_info.py
head -5 pyjhora-4.5.5.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE
Or against an existing install:
python -c "import importlib.metadata as m; d=m.metadata('PyJHora'); print(d['License']); print([c for c in d.get_all('Classifier') if 'License' in c])"Why this matters
The three licenses imply materially different obligations for anyone building on the package:
- MIT — permissive; closed-source commercial use is fine.
- GPL-3.0 — copyleft on distribution. Shipping an application requires source disclosure, but network/server use does not.
- AGPL-3.0 — copyleft on distribution and network interaction (§13). Hosting PyJHora behind an API also triggers source disclosure.
The GPL vs. AGPL distinction in particular decides whether server-side hosting carries obligations, so users can't resolve this by picking the most conservative reading and moving on — they need to know which one you intended.
Worth noting: pyswisseph is itself AGPL-3.0, so the MIT classifier could lead someone to believe they have more freedom than the dependency chain actually permits.
Suggested fix
If AGPL-3.0 is the intent (which the LICENSE file, setup.py header, and METADATA License: field all agree on):
- In
_package_info.py, change the classifier on line 47 to
"License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Affero General Public License v3"
- In
_package_info.py, update the lines 6–16 header to say Affero General Public License, matching setup.py
- Track down the source of the
MIT classifier in the built metadata (likely a pyproject.toml / setup.cfg license entry overriding _package_info.classifiers) and correct it
- Consider the PEP 639 form —
License-Expression: AGPL-3.0-only — which replaces the free-text field and classifiers with a single unambiguous declaration
Happy to open a PR for items 1–2 if that's useful.
Thanks for the library — the coverage of divisional charts, ashtakavarga, and the dasha systems in one package is genuinely impressive, and the fidelity to PVR Narasimha Rao's treatment shows.
Summary
PyJHora 4.5.5 declares three different licenses across its packaging metadata and source headers. The published PyPI package carries an
OSI Approved :: MIT Licenseclassifier while shipping the full AGPL-3.0 license text, so tooling and users get contradictory answers depending on where they look.I don't think this reflects an intentional dual-licensing arrangement — it looks like drift between
setup.py,_package_info.py, and the built metadata. Flagging it because it's the kind of thing that quietly misleads downstream users.Evidence
Installed from PyPI with
pip install PyJHora==4.5.5(Python 3.12):dist-info/licenses/LICENSEMETADATAline 6License: GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSEsetup.pylines 13–23 (header)METADATAline 672Classifier: License :: OSI Approved :: MIT License_package_info.pyline 47"License :: OSI Approved :: GNU General Public License v3 (GPLv3)"_package_info.pylines 6–16 (header)GitHub's own repo detection reports AGPL-3.0, which agrees with the
LICENSEfile and disagrees with the PyPI classifier.Reproduction
Or against an existing install:
python -c "import importlib.metadata as m; d=m.metadata('PyJHora'); print(d['License']); print([c for c in d.get_all('Classifier') if 'License' in c])"Why this matters
The three licenses imply materially different obligations for anyone building on the package:
The GPL vs. AGPL distinction in particular decides whether server-side hosting carries obligations, so users can't resolve this by picking the most conservative reading and moving on — they need to know which one you intended.
Worth noting:
pyswissephis itself AGPL-3.0, so the MIT classifier could lead someone to believe they have more freedom than the dependency chain actually permits.Suggested fix
If AGPL-3.0 is the intent (which the
LICENSEfile,setup.pyheader, andMETADATALicense:field all agree on):_package_info.py, change the classifier on line 47 to"License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Affero General Public License v3"_package_info.py, update the lines 6–16 header to say Affero General Public License, matchingsetup.pyMITclassifier in the built metadata (likely apyproject.toml/setup.cfglicenseentry overriding_package_info.classifiers) and correct itLicense-Expression: AGPL-3.0-only— which replaces the free-text field and classifiers with a single unambiguous declarationHappy to open a PR for items 1–2 if that's useful.
Thanks for the library — the coverage of divisional charts, ashtakavarga, and the dasha systems in one package is genuinely impressive, and the fidelity to PVR Narasimha Rao's treatment shows.