385 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
385 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
PEP: 541
|
||
Title: Package Index Name Retention
|
||
Version: $Revision$
|
||
Last-Modified: $Date$
|
||
Author: Łukasz Langa <lukasz@python.org>
|
||
BDFL-Delegate: Mark Mangoba <mmangoba@python.org>
|
||
Discussions-To: distutils-sig@python.org
|
||
Status: Final
|
||
Type: Process
|
||
Topic: Packaging
|
||
Content-Type: text/x-rst
|
||
Created: 12-Jan-2017
|
||
Post-History:
|
||
Resolution: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2018-March/032089.html
|
||
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
========
|
||
|
||
This PEP proposes an extension to the Terms of Use [1]_ of the Package
|
||
Index [2]_, clarifying expectations of package owners regarding
|
||
ownership of a package name on the Package Index, specifically with
|
||
regards to conflict resolution.
|
||
|
||
Existing package repositories such as CPAN [3]_, NPM [4]_, and
|
||
GitHub [5]_ will be investigated as prior art in this field.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Rationale
|
||
=========
|
||
|
||
Given that package names on the Index are sharing a single flat
|
||
namespace, a unique name is a finite resource. The growing age of
|
||
the Package Index causes a constant rise of situations of conflict
|
||
between the current use of the name and a different suggested use of
|
||
the same name.
|
||
|
||
This document aims to provide general guidelines for solving the
|
||
most typical cases of such conflicts.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approval Process
|
||
================
|
||
|
||
As the application of this policy has potential legal ramifications for the
|
||
Python Software Foundation, the approval process used is more formal than that
|
||
used for most PEPs.
|
||
|
||
Rather than accepting the PEP directly, the assigned BDFL-Delegate will instead
|
||
recommend its acceptance to the PSF's Packaging Working Group. After
|
||
consultation with the PSF's General Counsel, adoption of the policy will then
|
||
be subject to a formal vote within the working group.
|
||
|
||
This formal approval process will be used for both initial adoption of the
|
||
policy, and for adoption of any future amendments.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Specification
|
||
=============
|
||
|
||
The main idea behind this document is that the Package Index serves the
|
||
community. Every user is invited to upload content to the Package Index
|
||
under the Terms of Use, understanding that it is at the sole risk of
|
||
the user.
|
||
|
||
While the Package Index is not a backup service, the maintainers of the
|
||
Package Index do their best to keep that content accessible indefinitely
|
||
in its published form. However, in certain edge cases the greater
|
||
community's needs might overweigh the individual's expectation of
|
||
ownership of a package name.
|
||
|
||
The use cases covered by this document are:
|
||
|
||
* Abandoned projects:
|
||
|
||
* continued maintenance by a different set of users; or
|
||
* removal from the Index for use with a different project.
|
||
|
||
* Active projects:
|
||
|
||
* resolving disputes over a name.
|
||
|
||
* Invalid projects:
|
||
|
||
* projects subject to a claim of intellectual property infringement.
|
||
|
||
The proposed extension to the Terms of Use, as expressed in the
|
||
Implementation section, will be published as a separate document on the
|
||
Package Index, linked next to existing Terms of Use in the front page
|
||
footer.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Implementation
|
||
==============
|
||
|
||
Reachability
|
||
------------
|
||
|
||
The user of the Package Index is solely responsible for being reachable
|
||
by the Package Index maintainers for matters concerning projects that
|
||
the user owns. In every case where contacting the user is necessary,
|
||
the maintainers will try to do so at least three times, using the
|
||
following means of contact:
|
||
|
||
* the e-mail address on file in the user's profile on the Package Index;
|
||
* the e-mail address listed in the Author field for a given project
|
||
uploaded to the Index; and
|
||
* any e-mail addresses found in the given project's documentation
|
||
on the Index or on the listed Home Page.
|
||
|
||
The maintainers stop trying to reach the user after six weeks.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Abandoned projects
|
||
------------------
|
||
|
||
A project is considered *abandoned* when ALL of the following are met:
|
||
|
||
* owner not reachable (see Reachability above);
|
||
* no releases within the past twelve months; and
|
||
* no activity from the owner on the project's home page (or no
|
||
home page listed).
|
||
|
||
All other projects are considered *active*.
|
||
|
||
.. _continue-maintenance:
|
||
|
||
Continued maintenance of an abandoned project
|
||
---------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
If a candidate appears willing to continue maintenance on an *abandoned*
|
||
project, ownership of the name is transferred when ALL of the following
|
||
are met:
|
||
|
||
* the project has been determined *abandoned* by the rules described
|
||
above;
|
||
* the candidate is able to demonstrate their own failed attempts to contact
|
||
the existing owner;
|
||
* the candidate is able to demonstrate improvements made on the
|
||
candidate's own fork of the project;
|
||
* the candidate is able to demonstrate why a fork under a different name
|
||
is not an acceptable workaround; and
|
||
* the maintainers of the Package Index don't have any additional
|
||
reservations.
|
||
|
||
Under no circumstances will a name be reassigned against the wishes of
|
||
a reachable owner.
|
||
|
||
.. _reclaim-name:
|
||
|
||
Removal of an abandoned project
|
||
-------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Projects are never removed from the Package Index solely on the basis
|
||
of abandonment. Artifacts uploaded to the Package Index hold inherent
|
||
historical value.
|
||
|
||
An *abandoned* project can be transferred to a new owner for purposes
|
||
of reusing the name when ALL of the following are met:
|
||
|
||
* the project has been determined *abandoned* by the rules described
|
||
above;
|
||
* the candidate is able to demonstrate their own failed attempts to contact
|
||
the existing owner;
|
||
* the candidate is able to demonstrate that the project suggested to
|
||
reuse the name already exists and meets notability requirements;
|
||
* the candidate is able to demonstrate why a fork under a different name
|
||
is not an acceptable workaround;
|
||
* download statistics on the Package Index for the existing package
|
||
indicate project is not being used; and
|
||
* the maintainers of the Package Index don't have any additional
|
||
reservations.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Name conflict resolution for active projects
|
||
--------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
The maintainers of the Package Index are not arbiters in disputes
|
||
around *active* projects. There are many possible scenarios here,
|
||
a non-exclusive list describing some real-world examples is presented
|
||
below. None of the following qualify for package name ownership
|
||
transfer:
|
||
|
||
1. User A and User B share project X. After some time they part ways
|
||
and each of them wants to continue the project under name X.
|
||
2. User A owns a project X outside the Package Index. User B creates
|
||
a package under the name X on the Index. After some time, User A
|
||
wants to publish project X on the Index but realizes name is taken.
|
||
This is true even if User A's project X gains notability and the
|
||
User B's project X is not notable.
|
||
3. User A publishes project X to the Package Index. After some time
|
||
User B proposes bug fixes to the project but no new release is
|
||
published by User A. This is true even if User A agrees to publish
|
||
a new version and later doesn't, even if User B's changes are merged
|
||
to the source code repository for project X.
|
||
|
||
Again, the list above is not exclusive. The maintainers of the Package
|
||
Index recommend users to get in touch with each other and solve the
|
||
issue by respectful communication (see the PSF Code of Conduct [6]_).
|
||
|
||
|
||
Invalid projects
|
||
----------------
|
||
|
||
A project published on the Package Index meeting ANY of the following
|
||
is considered invalid and will be removed from the Index:
|
||
|
||
* project does not conform to Terms of Use;
|
||
* project is malware (designed to exploit or harm systems or users directly, to
|
||
facilitate command-and-control attacks, or perform data exfiltration);
|
||
* project is spam (designed to advertise or solicit goods or services);
|
||
* project contains illegal content;
|
||
* project violates copyright, trademarks, patents, or licenses;
|
||
* project is name squatting (package has no functionality or is
|
||
empty);
|
||
* project name, description, or content violates the Code of Conduct;
|
||
* project uses obfuscation to hide or mask functionality;
|
||
or
|
||
* project is abusing the Package Index for purposes it was not
|
||
intended.
|
||
|
||
The Package Index maintainers pre-emptively declare certain package
|
||
names as unavailable for security reasons.
|
||
|
||
Intellectual property policy
|
||
----------------------------
|
||
|
||
It is the policy of Python Software Foundation and the Package Index
|
||
maintainers to be appropriately responsive to claims of intellectual
|
||
property infringement by third parties. It is not the policy of
|
||
the Python Software Foundation nor the Package Index maintainers
|
||
to pre-screen uploaded packages for any type of intellectual property
|
||
infringement.
|
||
|
||
Possibly-infringing packages should be reported to legal@python.org
|
||
and counsel to the Python Software Foundation will determine an
|
||
appropriate response. A package can be removed or transferred to a
|
||
new owner at the sole discretion of the Python Software Foundation to
|
||
address a claim of infringement.
|
||
|
||
A project published on the Package Index meeting ANY of the following
|
||
may be considered infringing and subject to removal from the Index
|
||
or transferral to a new owner:
|
||
|
||
* project contains unlicensed copyrighted material from a third party,
|
||
and is subject to a properly made claim under the DMCA;
|
||
* project uses a third party's trademark in a way not covered by
|
||
nominal or fair use guidelines;
|
||
* project clearly implicates a patented system or process, and is
|
||
the subject of a complaint; or
|
||
* project is subject to an active lawsuit.
|
||
|
||
In the event of a complaint for intellectual property infringement,
|
||
a copy of the complaint will be sent to the package owner. In some
|
||
cases, action may be taken by the Package Index maintainers before
|
||
the owner responds.
|
||
|
||
|
||
The role of the Python Software Foundation
|
||
------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
The Python Software Foundation [7]_ is the non-profit legal entity that
|
||
provides the Package Index as a community service.
|
||
|
||
The Package Index maintainers can escalate issues covered by this
|
||
document for resolution by the Packaging Workgroup if the matter is not clear
|
||
enough. Some decisions *require* additional judgement by the Board,
|
||
especially in cases of Code of Conduct violations or legal claims.
|
||
Recommendations made by the Board are sent to the Packaging Workgroup [8]_ for review.
|
||
|
||
The Packaging Workgroup has the final say in any disputes covered by this document and
|
||
can decide to reassign or remove a project from the Package Index after
|
||
careful consideration even when not all requirements listed
|
||
here are met.
|
||
|
||
How to request a name transfer
|
||
==============================
|
||
|
||
If you want to take over an existing project name on PyPI,
|
||
these are the steps to follow:
|
||
|
||
1. Try to contact the current owner(s) directly: email them and open an issue
|
||
if you can find a related repository. The processes described here are meant
|
||
as a last resort if the owner cannot be contacted.
|
||
2. Check the criteria above to see when a transfer is allowed. In particular,
|
||
the criteria for `reusing a name for a different project <reclaim-name_>`_
|
||
are more stringent than for `continuing maintenance of the same project
|
||
<continue-maintenance_>`_ - although it's not easy to get a name transferred
|
||
in either case.
|
||
3. Search the `PyPI Support issues <https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues>`_
|
||
to see if anyone else is already requesting the same name.
|
||
4. If all the criteria are met to transfer ownership of the name,
|
||
`open a new issue <https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/new?labels=PEP+541&template=pep541-request.yml&title=PEP+541+Request%3A+PROJECT_NAME>`_
|
||
to request it, detailing why you believe each relevant criterion is
|
||
satisfied.
|
||
|
||
Prior art
|
||
=========
|
||
|
||
NPM contains a separate section linked from the front page called
|
||
`Package Name Disputes <https://www.npmjs.com/policies/disputes>`_.
|
||
It is described as a "living document", as of January 2017 its
|
||
contents might be summarized as follows:
|
||
|
||
* package name squatting is prohibited;
|
||
* users wanting to reuse a project name are required to contact the
|
||
existing author, with cc to support@npmjs.com;
|
||
* all contact must conform to the NPM Code of Conduct;
|
||
* in case of no resolution after a few weeks, npm inc. holds the right
|
||
to the final decision in the matter.
|
||
|
||
CPAN lets any user upload modules with the same name. PAUSE, a related
|
||
index, only lists modules uploaded by the primary maintainer or listed
|
||
co-maintainers. CPAN documentation doesn't address disputes otherwise.
|
||
|
||
GitHub's terms of service contain an exhaustive list of behavior
|
||
not meeting general conditions of use. While not codified anywhere,
|
||
GitHub does agree for users to reclaim abandoned account names by
|
||
archiving the abandoned account and letting the other user or
|
||
organization rename their account. This is done on a case-by-case
|
||
basis.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Rejected Proposals
|
||
==================
|
||
|
||
The original approach was to hope for the best and solve issues as they
|
||
arise without written policy. This is not sustainable. The lack of
|
||
generally available guidelines in writing on package name conflict
|
||
resolution is causing unnecessary tensions. From the perspective of
|
||
users, decisions made by the Package Index maintainers without written
|
||
guidelines may appear arbitrary. From the perspective of the Package
|
||
Index maintainers, solving name conflicts is a stressful task due to
|
||
risk of unintentional harm due to lack of defined policy.
|
||
|
||
|
||
References
|
||
==========
|
||
|
||
.. [1] Terms of Use of the Python Package Index
|
||
(https://pypi.org/policy/terms-of-use/)
|
||
|
||
.. [2] The Python Package Index
|
||
(https://pypi.org/)
|
||
|
||
.. [3] The Comprehensive Perl Archive Network
|
||
(http://www.cpan.org/)
|
||
|
||
.. [4] Node Package Manager
|
||
(https://www.npmjs.com/package/left-pad)
|
||
|
||
.. [5] GitHub
|
||
(https://github.com/)
|
||
|
||
.. [6] Python Community Code of Conduct
|
||
(https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/)
|
||
|
||
.. [7] Python Software Foundation
|
||
(https://www.python.org/psf/)
|
||
|
||
.. [8] Python Packaging Working Group
|
||
(https://wiki.python.org/psf/PackagingWG/)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Copyright
|
||
=========
|
||
|
||
This document has been placed in the public domain.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Acknowledgements
|
||
================
|
||
|
||
The many participants of the Distutils and Catalog SIGs for their
|
||
ideas over the years.
|
||
|
||
|
||
..
|
||
Local Variables:
|
||
mode: indented-text
|
||
indent-tabs-mode: nil
|
||
sentence-end-double-space: t
|
||
fill-column: 70
|
||
End:
|