I mean, of course you have to continuously accept terms of use changes as you publish to them. That is the same as anything else. To tack on a bit of additional conversation,
"Hi, I previously published v 0.1, I would now like to publish v 0.2"
"OK, cool, we have a new EULA if you want to publish 0.2"
"Great, no problem, signed and now I'll publish" / "Ah, I don't like those new terms, I'll publish elsewhere or not publish at all"
I don't get the complication here.
The statement I made is based on what is currently communicated. The "terms" is purely "you need to use 2FA" (which just to be clear I already said I have no quarrels with). I cannot judge what will be the future requirements will be for critical packages. Donald Stufft from PyPI on Twitter said that he could imagine requiring signed releases (https://twitter.com/dstufft/status/1545503252871004161).
> I don't get the complication here.
Maybe there is none, maybe there is. The consequence however undoubtedly is that if you do not accept the terms you lose access to your package on PyPI.
Right but I just don't get why this is notable or why anyone would ever be surprised by this, or why this would ever be controversial. I just can not wrap my head around this being framed as a complex issue when it seems so very straightforward.
You can say "Great, I accept all of that, thanks for providing distribution of my code for no monetary cost to me" or you can say "Ah, ok, thanks anyways but I would prefer not to accept that".
Is that clearer?