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-global

https://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@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@lists.fsfe.org escribió:

Re: Retroactive determination of "GPLv2-only" or "GPLv2-or-later" in an adopted project (Carsten Agger)