Clarify throughout the docs that the license key in pyproject.toml is for the distribution

[brettcannon]

Approved in https://discuss.python.org/t/split-from-pep-639-expressing-project-vs-distribution-licenses-post-pep-639-mod-titled/90314/179 .

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://python-packaging-user-guide--1909.org.readthedocs.build/en/1909/

[brettcannon]

The link failure is unrelated: https://github.com/pypa/packaging.python.org/actions/runs/17625533614/job/50081389316?pr=1909#step:5:1051

[befeleme]

This is the clarification agreed upon.

[pfmoore]

"or parts of it" no longer makes sense here after you removed "your project".

[rgommers]

I think this is correct after reviewing the glossary with definitions, but I'm not 100% sure. "Distribution Archive" refers to "Distribution Package" which doesn't mention sdist or wheel but seems to only cover the former. Wheels (and previously eggs) seem to be "Built Distribution"'s and not "Distribution Archive"'s.

If that sounds right, then this PR LGTM.

[pfmoore]

TBH, the terminology is a bit of a mess, and no-one uses most of it in real life. The key term in my view is "Distribution Package", and that's commonly used to mean either a wheel or a sdist¹. Personally I use "Distribution File" when I want to be 100% clear I'm talking about a physical file on disk (and I'm surprised to see that "Distribution Archive" is the official term for that, and somewhat disappointed as I think it's less clear - one of the ways it's less clear is that the term "archive" doesn't feel like it applies to wheels, whereas the term "file" obviously does).

The key point for me is that the revised wording is clear in its intent, and I think it is. We can consider replacing the term "Distribution Archive" with "Distribution File" (globally, not just here) as a separate exercise, if anyone thinks it's important enough to spend time on.

Footnotes

1. I suspect the wording is a bit vague because it was written in the days when other binary distribution formats, like bdist_wininst or bdist_rpm, still existed... ↩

[rgommers]

Thanks for the context @pfmoore, that helped. I re-read the files being changed in full, and I think this PR is fine indeed - it achieve the "distribution license not project's contributing license" well enough, and this PR is unrelated to auditwheel effects (that's the other PR @brettcannon opened). So 👍🏼 from me on this one.