License update (Closes: #27):

[onlyjob]

• Updated licensing headers as per assumption that the actual license is LGPL-3+ according to license text which did not match the headers. Used proper (L)GPL license statement and disclaimer.
• Renamed "LICENSE.GPL3" to "LICENSE.LGPL3" to reflect the actual text of the license; moved unnecessary info to "README.md".
• Removed unnecessary information from headers; kept only relevant copyright/license statement and backlink.
• Explicitly mention that donation address is for Bitcoins to avoid confusion with other crypto-currencies.
• Readme.md
  • included "intention statement" formerly used in headers.
  • mention donation address only once.
  • "normalised" email address.
  • mentioned BTC-E as well as MtGox; corrected some typos.

[rzhv]

Please, consider my comment on why choosing LGPL for the entire project might not be a good idea: https://github.com/JulyIGHOR/QtBitcoinTrader/issues/27#issuecomment-32689118

[onlyjob]

@rzhv: In your comment I found no arguments why to prefer other license(s) over LGPL. But please don't bother arguing as perhaps the following link explains what you were trying to say:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

[ralyodio]

why not MIT?

[onlyjob]

IMHO because MIT is not copyleft license. Personally I prefer (L/A)GPL and I think it is better for software. In this particular case the actual text of the license in "LICENSE.GPL3" file is LGPL-3 so I'm just helping to make the application of this license consistent.

[rzhv]

@onlyjob: If you take a good look then you will see that the author used GPL3 everywhere:

• "license" section at sourceforge.net: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcointrader/
• "license" section at www.softpedia.com/get/Others/Finances-Business/Bitcoin-Trader.shtml
• "license" section at http://packages.altlinux.org/en/Sisyphus/srpms/QtBitcoinTrader
• all 90+ header files in the repo, etc...

Then why are you persisting that the author wanted LGPL? Just because you found it in one file LICENSE.GPL3 (GPL3 again!), which probably was a wrong copy-paste of GPL3?

From the previous comment by the author (https://github.com/JulyIGHOR/QtBitcoinTrader/issues/27#issuecomment-20469461) I can tell that he was quite OK to add the exception lines to his files and keep GPL3.

@onlyjob: "But please don't bother arguing as perhaps the following link explains what you were trying to say" Yes it does explain it too, so why not accept this explanation? The author does not need LGPL to link to OpenSSL in his code. If you really care about making QtBitcoinTrader follow Debian rules, then follow Debian rules! Help the author add an exception to GPL3 as suggested by the Debian guys: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html.

@JulyIGHOR : If you need help, then I can make a pull request with the changes needed to include the special exception to the GPL3 headers of your files and correct the license text in LICENSE.GPL3. Just let me know...

P.S. However you look at it, changing license is a serious legal action, so I advice the author to not rush things and think twise before making any changes, given that his project has grown quite big already in size and popularity!

[onlyjob]

@rzhv, your speculations are as good as mine. Calm down and wait patiently for author to clarify the license.

[JulyIghor]

Hi. Project is not library. So license is GPL3 What should I change to allow openssl linking? And what to put in LICENSE.GPL3?

Please send to my email correct LICENSE.GPL3 file and text of cpp and h header.

[onlyjob]

@JulyIGHOR: I'll update my pull request for GPL-3+ & OpenSSL exception so everything you'll need to do is to merge it. Stay tuned, I'll get back to you in few days and will let you know when it's ready to merge. :)

[onlyjob]

Ready to merge.

[rzhv]

Good job! Thank you for this commit!