# PEP 639: Improving license clarity with better package metadata **URL:** \ **Category:** Packaging\ **Created:** [August 15, 2019, 2:34pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-639-improving-license-clarity-with-better-package-metadata/2154 "2019-08-15T14:34:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 79
**Author:** ![pganssle](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/pganssle/32/245_2.png) [@pganssle](https://discuss.python.org/u/pganssle)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2020, 3:27pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-639-improving-license-clarity-with-better-package-metadata/2154/79 "2020-07-16T15:27:51Z")
A suggestion: have you considered a repeated `License-File` field instead of `License-Files`? Almost all other “list” quantities like `Classifier`, `Requires-Dist`, etc use multiple-use fields rather than a single field with some delimiters (`Keywords` is not, but that’s a bit weird anyway, and I think `setuptools` is broken with respect to keywords and its delimiters anyway?). Though, also, I do think it would be very unusual to have any sort of metadata that is a reference to a file in the package as opposed to metadata about the package. It seems like it might be a better idea to glom on to the [sdist standardization discussion](https://discuss.python.org/t/sdist-idea-specifying-static-metadata-that-can-be-trusted/4703) and suggest that all the license files go into a dedicated directory like `.dist-info/license_files`? --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-639-improving-license-clarity-with-better-package-metadata/2154)._