Documenting my reasoning from #26361 I did not include this portion of the text because:

From the indentation of section 4 of http://www.personal.psu.edu/cab38/ColorBrewer/ColorBrewer_updates.html I read that the License is the first indented block and the rest of the text (above and below) as commentary. I read "remains in place" as "retained for historical reference on this website", not "appended to the License".

The github repo behind the https://colorbrewer2.org only carries an unmodified Apache 2.0 license (axismaps/colorbrewer#17 / https://github.com/axismaps/colorbrewer/blob/master/LICENCE.txt (which given they did not fill in the template may be its own problem but if it is I do not think is my problem) )

Finally, the stated intent of the change was to avoid a claimed incompatibility with the GPL which, per my understanding of the FSF's claims, is due to the restricitons on the use of names (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache1.1 ). Appending the Apache v1.1 license to the v2.0 version would defeat the stated intention.

I should note that I am not a Lawyer and @pchestek is (trying to sort out who I was talking to I believe she is https://opensource.org/board-member/pamela-chestek-2/).

@pchestek Are you opening this PR as yourself or on behalf of a client?

[Edited to fix miss-pasted link]

@tacaswell, should we close this?

Following @tacaswell’s argument and no opposing comments, I’m going to close this.