Hi Carsten
Seing the whole project in Github I think it's really licensed under the
GPLv2+
The Copyright notice and license header are coded to every file for
licensing every individual file in the project, and they are undoubtedly
under a GPLv2+ (or later) clause.
There are some drawbacks how it's licensed too, I think:
- It's not good practise: "This program is free software; you can
redistribute [...]" You shoud introduce the name of the program in the
license header. -> "Back in Time is free software; you can redistribute
[...]" Notice there are some places to change it in the license.
- Not every file in the source code repository is licensed, **every
source code file** should be licensed, configuration files, markdown
documentation, bash scripts... too! (No license header = closed source
software (if not a lax license file is present in source code, of course)).
I've seen programs worst licensed than this, reused :-D. (Simply a
license or copyright file in root source code tree, for example)
The best place to go is to GNU Savannah mailing lists for this, I share
their documentation about licensing too.
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-globalhttps://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/HowToGetYourProjectApprovedQuickly/
There is the licensing mail of the FSF, but perhaps, their are going to
give you a more legal than technical information... Perhaps is useful
too for you, I don't know
licensing(a)fsf.org
**Licensing correctly under the GPL can be tricky, avoiding Github and
uploading the project to GNU Savannah is a good examen for doing it right**
regards
Joa
El 22/7/24 a las 11:08, discussion-request(a)lists.fsfe.org escribió:
> Re: Retroactive determination of "GPLv2-only" or "GPLv2-or-later" in an adopted project
> (Carsten Agger)
--
Joaquín Cuéllar | Profesor Sustituto Interino, Área de Arquitectura y
Tecnología de Computadores
despacho: Leonardo Da Vinci LV9P120 - Al final del todo, parte antigua,
1ª planta -
web: https://gentooza.github.io
proyectos: https://github.com/gentooza
Brazilian hacker Felipe Fonseca writes about attending a meeting about
free software (as "open source") at the UN headquarters in New York and
writes, among other things:
"... almost nothing that I heard on those three days was new. And that's
not necessarily a bad thing. Some stories are worth being re-told, and
some questions are not supposed ever to be answered. Witnessing the same
types of discussions that we have had regularly twenty years ago in
Brazil now making it through to the United Nations is a reminder not to
give up. On the other side, though I see the fantastic potential of
having the UN pushing for open source practices amid its agencies,
member-states and other organisations, it is also a bit sad. I mean, if
that support was there twenty years ago, the movement wouldn't have lost
so much talent to corporations that are not at all aligned with openness
(or the SDGs, or even the concept of “good”). Many innovative and
committed people have dropped out because it became impossible to
counter proprietary for-profit corporations and still make a decent
living. Some of the best among us were recruited by the very
corporations we used to challenge and counter. And I believe that
process is irreversible."
and
"n my intervention, I wanted to draw attention to a particular sequence
of events that happened twenty years ago. I didn't get to mention all of
them, but list below:
1. Gilberto Gil is a Grammy-awarded musician with a lifelong interest
in technologies and their effects on humanity and the planet. In
2003, he became the Minister of Culture in Brazil. He practically
started his tenure participating on a panel during an international
festival about Tactical Media. On the occasion, he was surrounded by
two other panellists with very diverse views about the internet and
digital technologies. John Perry Barlow saw the internet as a place
outside the real world, which should not be bothered by governments
and regulations. Richard Barbrook had the view that the internet had
been created with public funding, and for that reason, there should
be considerations about equality and inclusion in its implementation
and governance. Gil answered to that tension, basically saying that
both were right, and that such difference should be resolved
dynamically. He used the image of capoeira movements - a mix of play
and fight, of dance and confrontation, of overcoming differences
with good spirits.
2. Some months later, Gil played his guitar at the UN General Assembly,
making tens of delegates dance along. On the occasion, even the then
Secretary-General played percussion with him. I’m aware that this
may not seem that relevant regarding open source technologies. The
important point here is that he was inspiring people to address
contemporary challenges with good mood, and a profound understanding
of the role of culture. ..."
It's a good and thought-provoking read:
https://is.efeefe.me/stuff/open-for-all
--
Carsten Agger -agger(a)fsfe.org
https://fsfe.org ---https://blogs.fsfe.org/agger/
FSFE Denmark Coordinator, General Assembly & European Team Member
Free Software, Free Society!
Hello,
I am a member of an upstream maintainer team that took over a project
about 2 years ago, which is approximately 15 years old. We are the
third generation of maintainers and lack contact with the previous
developers.
The project is under GPLv2. This is stated on Microsoft GitHub, in the
license file, and the header of each code file. However, only the known
standard text of the GPLv2 has been copied without any modifications.
Further information on the licensing is unknown to me.
If I understand this standard text correctly, it does not explicitly
state whether a project is "GPLv2-only" or "GPLv2-or-later". This
distinction should be made elsewhere. But where exactly?
How should I proceed if I cannot determine this with certainty,
especially since I cannot get in touch with the previous authors
anymore? Are there any precedents for this?
Can I freely interpret the license and simply declare it as "-or-later"?
Thanks for the information.
Christian Buhtz
<https://github.com/bit-team/backintime>
On September 18, the FSFE Local Group in Denmark is organizing a talk
about "Life without the tech giants":
https://freely.modspil.dk/agger/et-liv-uden-tech-giganterne-mode-hos-prosa-…
(in Danish)
We'll discuss how to build our daily software infrastructure on Free
Software only, using decentralized and self-hosted or comunally-hosted
alternatives - i.e., things like NextCloud, Mastodon (and Pixelfed etc.
- Fediverse in general), Matrix, free Android distributions, etc.
Everyone is welccome :-) It will likely be in Danish unless some
non-Danish speakers turn up, in that case we'll switch to English.
Best,
Carsten