DevHeads.net

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] <a href="https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-pim/2019-May/024740.html" title="https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-pim/2019-May/024740.html">https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-pim/2019-May/024740.html</a>

Comments

Re: Old source files without license header?

By Albert Astals Cid at 06/11/2019 - 17:17

Tried LinkedIn ?

Seems to be this guy

<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/thorsten-st%C3%A4rk-6082755/" title="https://www.linkedin.com/in/thorsten-st%C3%A4rk-6082755/">https://www.linkedin.com/in/thorsten-st%C3%A4rk-6082755/</a>

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: