Hi, Two weeks ago I tried to contact a former developer of KTimeTracker [1] to license two files under GPL. I got no response from him since then, but may be we can assume the license is still GPLv2...
The reasons why it might be OK to just add a GPLv2 license header without asking: 1. When these "unlicensed" files were committed into KDE SVN repository in 2009, the root directory for KTimeTracker sources also contained a COPYING file with GPLv2 terms. This could imply that anything committed under the directory is automatically licensed under GPLv2. 2. According to GPLv2+, it's illegal to modify a GPLv2+ project and not license it under GPLv2 or later version. Thus, assuming the author didn't intend to break the license, we may consider two cases: - he intended to license the modified version as GPLv2 (but forgot to add the headers into the files), - he intended to relicense the modified version as GPLv3. However the other files are still under GPLv2, thus this case can't be right. IANAL, so what do you think - is it OK to just add GPLv2 license headers to files that never had them? [1] https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-pim/2019-May/024740.html -- Alexander Potashev
