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