LicenseGuard

Is text-unidecode safe for commercial use?

PyPI package · License: Artistic-1.0 OR GPL-2.0-or-later

text-unidecode is licensed under Artistic-1.0 OR GPL-2.0-or-later. It carries no source-disclosure obligation, but its terms restrict how the software may be used, so 3 of the 5 shipping models below need a reading of the license itself.

Can I use text-unidecode in SaaS, a distributed app, or internally?

How you ship itResultWhy
Hosted SaaS No obligation This package offers a choice of licenses. The least restrictive option is shown. GPL-2.0-or-later triggers its obligations on distribution. Your distribution model is hosted SaaS, which is not distribution, so no obligation arises today. Shipping this software later — on-premises delivery, a binary, or a published library — would trigger whole-work source disclosure.
Distributed binary / app Needs review This package offers a choice of licenses. The least restrictive option is shown. Artistic-1.0 does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review.
Delivered to customer Needs review This package offers a choice of licenses. The least restrictive option is shown. Artistic-1.0 does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review.
Internal use only No obligation This package offers a choice of licenses. The least restrictive option is shown. GPL-2.0-or-later triggers its obligations on distribution. Your distribution model is internal use only, which is not distribution, so no obligation arises today. Shipping this software later — on-premises delivery, a binary, or a published library — would trigger whole-work source disclosure.
Published library Needs review This package offers a choice of licenses. The least restrictive option is shown. Artistic-1.0 does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review.

What obligations does text-unidecode carry?

None

If you only use it at build time, the answer changes.

This package offers a choice of licenses. The least restrictive option is shown. Artistic-1.0 appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually.

Questions this page answers

Is text-unidecode safe for commercial use?

text-unidecode is licensed under Artistic-1.0 OR GPL-2.0-or-later. It carries no source-disclosure obligation, but its terms restrict how the software may be used, so 3 of the 5 shipping models below need a reading of the license itself.

Can I use text-unidecode (Artistic-1.0 OR GPL-2.0-or-later) in hosted saas?

This package offers a choice of licenses. The least restrictive option is shown. GPL-2.0-or-later triggers its obligations on distribution. Your distribution model is hosted SaaS, which is not distribution, so no obligation arises today. Shipping this software later — on-premises delivery, a binary, or a published library — would trigger whole-work source disclosure.

Can I use text-unidecode (Artistic-1.0 OR GPL-2.0-or-later) in distributed binary / app?

This package offers a choice of licenses. The least restrictive option is shown. Artistic-1.0 does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review.

Can I use text-unidecode (Artistic-1.0 OR GPL-2.0-or-later) in delivered to customer?

This package offers a choice of licenses. The least restrictive option is shown. Artistic-1.0 does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review.

Can I use text-unidecode (Artistic-1.0 OR GPL-2.0-or-later) in internal use only?

This package offers a choice of licenses. The least restrictive option is shown. GPL-2.0-or-later triggers its obligations on distribution. Your distribution model is internal use only, which is not distribution, so no obligation arises today. Shipping this software later — on-premises delivery, a binary, or a published library — would trigger whole-work source disclosure.

Can I use text-unidecode (Artistic-1.0 OR GPL-2.0-or-later) in published library?

This package offers a choice of licenses. The least restrictive option is shown. Artistic-1.0 does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review.

Does text-unidecode matter if it is only a build-time or dev dependency?

This package offers a choice of licenses. The least restrictive option is shown. Artistic-1.0 appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually.

This page covers one package. Your requirements.txt has many more.

Check your whole manifest →

How was this determined?

The license was read from the PyPI registry, then evaluated against each shipping model. Only the declared license is considered; code copied into a project's own source files is not detected by this method.

License data last reviewed .

LicenseGuard reports information derived from published license texts and dependency manifests. It is not legal advice and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Results reflect license metadata as declared; they do not identify every obligation or violation. Consult qualified counsel for decisions that matter.

Listed in the official MCP registry, on Glama and on Smithery. Source on GitHub (Apache-2.0).