Re: Old source files without license header?
вс, 16 июн. 2019 г. в 18:58, Allen Winter : > > On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 1:50:08 PM EDT Alexander Potashev wrote: > > 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... > > > did you try relicensecheck.pl in kde-dev-scripts? > > As I recall, the intended purpose of relicensecheck.pl was explicitly for > handling situations like this. > > @all please do consider adding your name to relicensecheck.pl Hi Allen, I looked inside relicensecheck.pl and didn't find Thorsten's name there. Thorsten replied in private to my initial email I sent to kde-pim, so I asked him to somehow make it public or submit a patch through Phabricator. So the situation might be resolved in a few days when Thorsten actions on my email. -- Alexander Potashev
Re: Old source files without license header?
Tried LinkedIn ? Seems to be this guy https://www.linkedin.com/in/thorsten-st%C3%A4rk-6082755/ Worst case scenario i know someone that works at SAP currently so we could try to contact him via internal work email if linkedin fails Cheers, Albert El dimarts, 11 de juny de 2019, a les 19:50:08 CEST, Alexander Potashev va escriure: > 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 > >
Old source files without license header?
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
