It looks like there's a disagreement between Liliana and Maxime
which was never fully addressed, so it's not clear if this will ever
be merge-able.
My take is that Maxime's example of pip is relevant because the pypi terms of use
only requires that a royalty-free license is present, and non-free
licenses can be royalty-free (I am not a lawyer). However, based on
Liliana's interpretation of the FSDG the conclusion is "pip should
not be included" rather than "the webstore should be included". Of
course, removing pip is likely to cause problems for people as pip
is a widely used method of managing python code. I do not know if
any of the people in this conversation so far are legal experts and
I would want to have a high level of confidence before proposing
such a controversial change.
Considering that this email came from an address that cannot be
valid, I think it is also fair to be concerned that this email might
have been sent in bad faith with the intent of creating conflict and
disrupting the project. Since we don't have any reason to think that
including pip is a violation of the FSDG other than presumably
amateur analysis, pip is a high-profile package so it's not likely
to have been overlooked, and the only person who has expressed
interest in including the webstore has gone out of their way to
obfuscate their identity, I think it would be fair to simply close
this issue with no further discussion. But I do not feel comfortable
taking that action unilaterally considering the sensitivity of the
matters discussed.