Unify build logic, sync with version catalogs, bump dependencies

[PatrykMis]

Improvements

• unify versions of dependencies and sync with version catalogs
• bump dependencies
• small build code adjustments
• Sync Polish translation
• Add missing GPL v3 license clause to some files.

[Irineu333]

Thank you for updating the unlicensed files. I had intended to do that later; I had only mentioned adding the license to the file you created. This provides security for anyone who wishes to reuse the code because, according to the law, the person who writes it automatically holds all rights to the code. The license essentially involves you granting your rights under the terms of the license. Code without a license, for legal purposes, is proprietary code that cannot be reused. Therefore, files without a license can cause problems if the author decides to enforce their rights.

[PatrykMis]

The clause states about the software as a whole product, not an individual files. Observing it in practise, the software is Copyright © to you, thus I added the same in every file. I haven't touched files that are automatically generated by Android Studio, because they have no license so I asume they're in public domain. Regaldless of clause in any file, the repository clearly states being licensed as GPL v3, so I think it's not nessesary to clutter every file, but it's only my personal opinion.

[Irineu333]

I think I misunderstood the license then. I thought that each file should have the copyright of whoever created it, giving away their rights. Whoever modified it would essentially accept the terms. Sorry for the confusion, I'll read it again.

[Irineu333]

I also believe that it is not necessary to put a license on generated files, they are probably under the Apache 2.0 license.

[PatrykMis]

I think you don't misunderstood. Good starting point: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/6813/is-using-the-gplv3-without-putting-a-license-notice-in-each-source-file-ok.

It's advice/recommendation, not a requirement.

[Irineu333]

Regarding it being a recommendation, and not exactly a requirement, to put the license in the files, I understand perfectly. I decided to follow this recommendation, because the arguments convinced me. In the issue where the license was included ^1, I mention exactly the same topic as the FAQ mentioned in this stackexchange issue. But regarding the issue of copyright, from what I understand, each file must mention the authors of the file and not the creator or maintainer of the project, which makes perfect sense. Look in the Linux repo, each file will have its authors mentioned and not Linus Torvalds.

Note that a GPL project is not necessarily linked to a person. If you want, you can to maintain a fork of SpeakTouch yourself and without my intervention, just keeping the copyright.

[PatrykMis]

Ok, so to rebase it or drop this commit?

[PatrykMis]

also the second question, is it worth adding clause to some of the build files especially which are quite generic (without custom logic, Kotlin functions etc.)?

[Irineu333]

The recommendation is to put it in all files, even in the build files. I think the project becomes more coherent this way. Maybe it's just a whim, but what's your opinion? I wasn't putting this in the XML files because they are only for configuration, not programming.

If you want to leave it without a license, that's fine, but if you want to include it, put your name. This way, you can receive credit for your work (although the git history already shows it). In files where you made significant changes, you can add your copyright along with mine. From what I've seen in the Linux repository, there can be more than one author.

At least that's what I understood when researching, if you understand otherwise feel free to explain.