# PEP 639, Round 3: Improving license clarity with better package metadata

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-639-round-3-improving-license-clarity-with-better-package-metadata/53020>\
**Category:** Standards\
**Created:** [May 10, 2024, 6:36am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-639-round-3-improving-license-clarity-with-better-package-metadata/53020 "2024-05-10T06:36:41Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 145

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![daniele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dfb087/32.png) [@daniele](https://discuss.python.org/u/daniele)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2024, 8:05pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-639-round-3-improving-license-clarity-with-better-package-metadata/53020/145 "2024-12-01T20:05:58Z")

</div>

I am not a `twine` maintainer. Fully supporting metadata version 2.4 was not deemed important enough to delay the release. AFAICT the focus of the release is to make twine compatible with the latest release of `pkginfo`, one of its dependencies, that had previously to be pinned to an earlier release causing some trouble for distribution maintainers having to integrate `twine` in their distribution. Full support for metadata version 2.4 will likely be in the next release.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-639-round-3-improving-license-clarity-with-better-package-metadata/53020)._