License collision - Githubissues

virxkane commented 2 years ago

I recently discovered collision in the license for the CoolReader source code, which seems to violate the project's license. Examining the README.md file, we see that the license is "GPLv2 only". But in most source files, the comment header says:

                CoolReader Engine

        (c) Vadim Lopatin, 2000-2009

        This source code is distributed under the terms of
        GNU General Public License.
        See LICENSE file for details.

The LICENSE file was missing and only appeared in PR #205. The LICENSE file contains the text of the GPLv2 license. According to section 9 of GPLv2: "If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." But the README.md file clearly says "All source codes (except thirdparty directory) are provided under the terms of GNU GPL license, version 2", i.e. "GPLv2 only". The essence of the collision: according by several source files - they can be used under the terms of GPLv1, GPLv2, GPLv3 and, in the future, newer, but the README file limits us to version 2, and in some files there is no information about the license used at all. For CoolReader, this matters because the Android framework libraries are used (which theoretically can be considered as system libraries, which is allowed https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SystemLibraryException) and until recently used the Android JetPack libraries (or rather AndroidX), distributed under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license, which are not GPLv2 compliant but GPLv3 compliant, and if you focus on the README file, then it turns out they cannot be used. The code using the AndroidX library was added in PR #177 and removed in PR #336, but using this approach is unproductive and, in my opinion, unacceptable, instead of implementing some functionality in the most convenient way, we have to look for some workarounds, just not to use the code under the Apache 2.0 license. Reminds me of a fighting with windmills. For the KOReader project, this also matters, since the KOReader license (AGPLv3) is incompatible with the license of the used crengine library (a fork of CoolReader, presumably GPLv2 only), and according to the explanation of a single combined program https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins licenses must be compatible.

I requested advice from the FSF by sending an email to licensing@fsf.org, below is the response without any corrections or cuts:

from: Yoni Rabkin via RT licensing@fsf.org Date: 19 июн. 2022 г., 16:47 Subject: [gnu.org #1845021] Re: license question about CoolReader program

Hello and thank you for writing in.

Hello! Please give an explanation about the compatibility of licenses.

There is a CoolReader program, its repository is located at https://github.com/buggins/coolreader/ , it is present in the Google Play app store, F-Droid directory, in some Linux distributions, for example, Fedora, Gentoo Linux.

At the moment, the version for Android is quite popular, but, unfortunately, it is not currently being developed.

According to the README.md file, the GPLv2 license is used. In most source files, the comment header says the following:

CoolReader Engine

(c) Vadim Lopatin, 2000-2009

This source code is distributed under the terms of GNU General Public License. See LICENSE file for details.

The LICENSE file contains the text of the GPLv2 license.

As I understood from the clarifications on the gnu.org website, without specifying the license version, any version of your choice is implied, i.e. and version 2 and version 3. In addition, the license is specified differently in the two header files:

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

And some files say nothing at all about the license used.

Which project file has higher priority when specifying a license, README or source files and, accordingly, what kind of license does this project have "GPLv2 only" or "GPLv2 or later"? (1)

Ultimately, only the copyright holder can answer as to what they meant when they licensed the work in this way. There may be some reasoning behind it; we can't say.

The Android version uses the Android framework libraries under the Apache 2.0 license, which is not compatible with GPLv2, but is compatible with GPLv3, GPLv3, in turn, is not compatible with GPLv2. However, I believe that these libraries are system libraries and their use in a program under the GPLv2 license is allowed: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SystemLibraryException

I haven't examined the Android libraries in question and cannot say if they would be considered system libraries. One criteria you can examine is if the libraries in question are normally distributed with the Android system and are used to enable use of the system.

It is also possible that the CoolReader program has had incompatible licensing all this time.

One way of working around this particular issue would be for the copyright holder to add an exception for the Apache 2.0 licensed materials: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

Currently, Android application development usually involves the use of Android JetPack libraries under the Apache 2.0 license (Google developer). Mainly used by AndroidX https://developer.android.com/jetpack/androidx

At the same time, the AndroidX library is not a system library, therefore, it cannot be used in this project.

Is it so? (2)

This may be the case, yes. But as above, it is possible that through carelessness the copyright holders of the work have created a bit of a licensing mess.

Are there any options for using the CoolReader sources under the GPLv3 license? (3)

At least partially, yes, but there may be parts which would require work. Those parts that have clear license headers can be upgraded. Those parts which do not specify a GPL version can be upgraded as well.

Parts that have no licensing information require clarification; we don't know if they are under a free software license of any kind.

If they are not, then the question arises of changing the license from GPLv2 to GPLv3.

In this regard, I contacted the main developer of CoolReader Vadim Lopatin [coolreader.org@gmail.com](mailto:coolreader.org@gmail.com) with a request to upgrade the license to GPLv3, to which he asked if agreement with all contributors was required. And it seems, according to the license, it is required. The program is many years old, many developers have ceased their participation, I do not have their contacts, the original developer has also ceased development and is unlikely to be interested in finding former contributors. I am more than sure that some contributors are simply not to be found.

The main developer can at least give you authorization to upgrade those parts of the work for which they are the copyright holder. This can be as simple as them adding proper copyright notices and GPLv3 license headers to the files for which they hold the rights, and giving you a copy.

If there is code in the project with unclear provenance, or for which you are unsure of the license, then you cannot distribute that code with any confidence. I would recommend trying to clear up the situation for that code.

Is it possible to limit the number of developers with whom you need to agree on a license change based on the clarification of a small contribution? (4)

See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ru.html#WhatIfWorkIsShort

That is a matter of legal advice, and we cannot provide that.

If in doubt, you would need to remove that code and re-implement it independently.

How should the procedure for replacing the license of a non-commercial open source application from GPLv2 to GPLv3 go? (5)

In what form is an agreement from developers required to change a license, in electronic form, in paper form, what type of signature is required? (6)

If, hypothetically, the consent of all contributors is obtained, is it required to publish any supporting documents before changing the license? Is it enough to point in the README that the contributors have agreed to change the license? (7)

These developers supposedly sent in patches under GPLv2, and no paperwork signatures were required back then; so none would be needed now. All that is needed is for them to send in a patch of the code for which they hold the copyright with GPLv3 headers instead of GPLv2. Or with GPLv2 headers with a clear "or later" statement.

Please note that it is not beyond possibility that through carelessness and negligence in licensing the original developers have doomed the project. Hopefully, you can at least salvage some of the software.

I hope this is of help.

-- I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice

Regards, Yoni Rabkin

from: Yoni Rabkin via RT licensing@fsf.org Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 09:31:31 -0400 Subject: [gnu.org #1845021] Re: license question about CoolReader program

To do this, I plan to create a discussion (issue) in the project repository on github, can I post your answer?

Please feel free to post my answer publicly. I only ask that you do so in full and verbatim so that the entire context of my responses is clear.

It's also not very clear to me what to do with files whose author is the main developer, who indicated the GPL license without a version in the file header

I understand that you have some contact with the main developer. I would therefore recommend clarifying with the main developer/copyright holder that wherever they had placed a license header without a version, that it should be replaced with a standard GPL license header which includes the version and with the "or later" clause (which is standard practice.)

You can point out to them that as per section 9 of GPLv2: "If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."

But of course doing this in coordination with the copyright holder is always better than doing it independently.

and which were extended by contributors. Basically, they did not change the file headers in any way, i.e. they did not indicate > their copyright and the author of the edits can only be found in the git history. What should they add to the header of the file?

If they contributed to a file which was clearly marked as under the GPL (regardless of version) then they could only have license their contribution under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license. Anything else would risk being if violation of the GPL if they were to distribute the GPL'd work with GPL-incompatible modifications. So unless they intended to violate the GPL, their contributions would have to have been under compatible terms.

However, if nobody recorded their the license or copyright notices then you will have to start reconstructing the licensing of the project in retrospect.

Each contributor should have a copyright notice. These copyright notices are ideally placed at the top of the file modified. However, they can also be concentrated in a single file, such as an "AUTHORS" file. Each of the copyright notices would take the form of:

"Copyright (C) 2017, 2019 Man McGent man.m@example.org"

An email is optional, but helpful for reasons which should now be obvious to you.

If they contributed under the GPL, then no change needs to be made for the license header; it will still be the standard GPL license header as shown at the bottom of the GPL license text in the section "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs"

If they contributed under a GPL-compatible license, then you would add that license information:

"Copyright (C) 2017, 2019 Man McGent under the Expat license, see LICENSE.EXPAT"

The goal being that each file will contain all of the information needed so that people will be able to know who is the copyright holder of that material, and under which license they can enjoy the work.

P.S. I am also the maintainer of software which belongs to the GNU project. When I inherited the maintainership of the project, the licensing situation was similar to the one you describe above (which is to say, bad). It took me over a year to contact people, clarify the licensing, and re-write "orphan" parts, but I did it in the end and the project is now alive and well. I say this in order to strengthen your resolve, and to say that I understand the magnitude of the problem.

-- I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice

Regards, Yoni Rabkin

If I understand correctly, in order to eliminate this collision and ambiguities about the license used, we need to perform one of the options:

check with the main developer what exactly was meant by the phrases «This source code is distributed under the terms of GNU General Public License. See LICENSE file for details» и «All source codes (except thirdparty directory) are provided under the terms of GNU GPL license, version 2», whether inadvertently limited the GPL version to v2 only or is this explicit restriction; 1.1. If the author meant GPLv2 or later, then it is necessary to agree with all copyright holders, i.e. with all co-authors, whether they agree with such an interpretation, i.e. with the fact that their work will be used under the terms of the GPLv3 or later license, since they could be misleading due to a non-standard indication of the license used; 1.2. If the author meant GPLv2 only, then find out from the author whether it is against changing the wording to GPLv2 or later, and also coordinate this change with all copyright holders, since they could be misled due to a non-standard indication of the license used; 1.3. In all cases, if the response from the copyright holder/co-author is not received or it is negative, it is necessary to delete the corresponding code and rewrite it from scratch.
Update license statement to GPLv3 or later. This is the cleanest use case for Apache 2.0 licensed code/libraries. It is necessary to agree with all copyright holders/co-authors, if the response from the copyright holder/co-author is not received or it is negative, it is necessary to delete the corresponding code and rewrite it from scratch.
(useless option) copyright holders add exception for licensed Apache 2.0 material: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs. It is also necessary to agree with all copyright holders/co-authors, if the response from the copyright holder/co-author is not received or it is negative, it is necessary to delete the corresponding code and rewrite it from scratch. In terms of the amount of work, all these options are equal, so the 3rd option is of little use, since it gives very little benefit.

In addition, we need to do the following: • Identify all copyright holders/co-authors from the git history and patch authors in the previous project repository https://sourceforge.net/projects/crengine/ and create a file with the list of authors; • Since the FSF recommends placing copyright information in the header of source files, reconstruct this licensing information in retrospect.

I understand that in this case the license is violated absolutely symbolically, not by malicious intent, but as a result of a careless indication of the project license and the violation is rather minor, I believe that the spirit of the license is not violated, it's just a collision. But after discovering this situation, realizing the illegitimacy of the license, the senselessness of working on the project is felt.

If I am mistaken and CoolReader sources can be used under the terms of the GPLv3 license without taking any additional steps, please clarify it.

The opinion of the community, including KOReader, is interesting.

I suggest that all CoolReader co-authors present on github choose an option by leaving a comment:

Set project license to clearly GPLv2 or later;
Update project license to GPLv3 or later;
Add an exception for the Apache 2.0 licensed materials;
Do nothing, leave everything as it is. Then try to get opinions from patch authors not present on github, for example, patches posted on sourceforge https://sourceforge.net/p/crengine/patches/search/?q=status%3Awont-fix+or+status%3Aclosed-fixed+or+status%3Aclosed, find out if there were other patch sources (seems impossible), choose the most popular answer. Take further actions based on the results of the vote. Pinging @buggins, @pkb, @avnik, @S-trace, @ourairquality, @EXL, @Frenzie, @poire-z, @pazos.

Voting results: https://github.com/buggins/coolreader/issues/338#issuecomment-1164266957

virxkane commented 2 years ago

I choose option 1 (set project license to clearly GPLv2 or later) and 2 (update project license to GPLv3 or later), i.e. the one with the most votes.

poire-z commented 2 years ago

(I have no real undestanding of all these licences and legal matters - and no real interest in understanding all that better :) I just want all of us to be able to keep what we have and continue having fun building nice things. I delegate my vote to my KOReader fellows that may understand all this better than me. Also pinging @NiLuJe who contributed to crengine.)

(I also dunno if removing the Android and other frontends bits - that we don't use - from our crengine fork would/could make things clearer on our side.)

NiLuJe commented 2 years ago

Yeah, my own approach to these sort of things is to switch to GPLv3+ (or 2+ or LGPL3+ if meaningful).

On mobile right now, but you have my authorisation to relicense as you see fit whatever I might have committed that would currently be unclearly licensed (iirc, I should have imported the Qt bits properly on that front).

NiLuJe commented 2 years ago

(FWIW, we'd be okay with 2+ in KOReader, but our own license would effectively make it 3+).

That said, IANAL and I may be misremembering some of the finer points ;p.

virxkane commented 2 years ago

Thanks. I will add the voting results to the end of the original post.

pazos commented 2 years ago

Nobody cares about licensing unless the IP is tied to a company/foundation or the individual holding the IP wants to sell the program under an EULA, incompatible with the license.

The other thing I saw that's not covered by these two cases is: a company/individual wants to put its app in a store, under a free software license, but wants to prevent others from pushing copycats to the same store. In those cases it is useful to add an exception in the licensing (which is compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3) to prevent the app to be distributed in places where the GPL cannot be enforced. The copyright holder can still do whatever with the program because it is not tied to the said software license.

I think none of those apply here. If that's not the case the copyright holder, @buggins, needs to get in touch with each past contributor and make them fill a CLA so he might be able to enforce intellectual property.

Companies like Google, Microsoft or Apple don't take copycat removal of free software unless the one that requires it can prove it has the entire copyright of the program.

virxkane commented 2 years ago

@pazos I don't care about copycats scam, I just can't write software in violation of its license :)

pazos commented 2 years ago

Then you're fine and you can keep GPLv2. As far as I understand changing the license to any other could be harder to enforce properly because only the copyright holder is able to do that kind of changes (and that requires the consent of all past contributors, because they were contributing under a different software license and they're the copyright holders of non trivial changes).

Of course most projects might avoid any kind of legal sanity and just replace the LICENSE in project's root. Because, again: nobody cares about licensing :)

pazos commented 2 years ago

For CoolReader, this matters because the Android framework libraries are used (which theoretically can be considered as system libraries, which is allowed https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SystemLibraryException) and until recently used the Android JetPack libraries (or rather AndroidX), distributed under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license, which are not GPLv2 compliant but GPLv3 compliant, and if you focus on the README file, then it turns out they cannot be used. The code using the AndroidX library was added in PR https://github.com/buggins/coolreader/pull/177 and removed in PR https://github.com/buggins/coolreader/pull/336, but using this approach is unproductive and, in my opinion, unacceptable, instead of implementing some functionality in the most convenient way, we have to look for some workarounds, just not to use the code under the Apache 2.0 license. Reminds me of a fighting with windmills. For the KOReader project, this also matters, since the KOReader license (AGPLv3) is incompatible with the license of the used crengine library (a fork of CoolReader, presumably GPLv2 only), and according to the explanation of a single combined program https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins licenses must be compatible.

I see no problems with any of these cases unless you want mess with legal disputes. In that case yes Coolreader and KOReader are both screwed

virxkane commented 2 years ago

Then you're fine and you can keep GPLv2.

Can I use AndroidX in GPLv2 only software?

Frenzie commented 2 years ago

1 and 2 are fine by me. You have my permission to relicense my meager few commits (if they even reached this repo) to GPLv3.

EXL commented 2 years ago

The first point seems to be the most preferable.

virxkane commented 2 years ago

@pazos Quite a pragmatic approach, maybe I'll have to do so if buggins don't respond.

pkb commented 2 years ago

@virxkane, I grant you permission to relicense my bits of code to GPLv2+.

virxkane commented 2 years ago

Thanks. Now I am creating a list of authors to get the opinion of all the other authors. Also waiting @buggins for explanations & opinion.

ourairquality commented 2 years ago

@virxkane, I grant you permission to relicense my bits of code to GPLv2+ or GPLv3+

S-trace commented 2 years ago

@virxkane, I grant you permission to relicense my bits of code to GPLv2+ (or GPLv3+).

virxkane commented 2 years ago

AUTHORS draft added https://github.com/virxkane/coolreader/blob/einwis/crengine/Tools/getauthors/AUTHORS.draft

virxkane commented 2 years ago

@avnik, @roshavagarga, @plotn, @band-a-prend, @zwim, @norbi24, @Isira-Seneviratne, @Jellby, @t3d, @erosennin, @dbedrenko, @radioxoma, @ErofeevK, @frankyifei, @arthurzam, @City-busz, @Carmina16, @Edward259, @MatoDroid, @slonm, @burunduk, @strn, @cybersphinx, @data-man, @jperon, @macnuts, @probonopd, @chrox, @cramoisi, @bbgordon, @houqp, @robert00s, @hwhw, @ClaudioVZ, @Hzj-jie, @Markismus, @fenuks Your work is present in CoolReader (some of you have been committing to koreader/crengine and then they were transfered to this repository). As a result of the ambiguous license statement in the README file, you may have been misled into thinking that the project's license is GPLv2 only. Do you authorize the use of your work in this repository under GPLv2 or any later license version? Please read the first post.

fenuks commented 2 years ago

Yes, I do.

erosennin commented 2 years ago

Sure. :) I hereby authorize the use of my work in this repository under GPLv2 or any later version.

band-a-prend commented 2 years ago

I did too tiny contributions. Anyway any licence is applicable to it according to the program author will.

virxkane commented 2 years ago

Anyway any licence is applicable to it according to the program author will.

So you agree with the choice of @buggins? I think he will answer soon, he answered the e-mail earlier.

plotn commented 2 years ago

Yes, I agree. I think gpl2+ is maximally flexible for all of us?

strn commented 2 years ago

Yes, I do authorize.

------- Original Message ------- On Sunday, June 26th, 2022 at 22:59, Aleksey Chernov @.***> wrote:

@avnik, @roshavagarga, @plotn, @band-a-prend, @zwim, @norbi24, @Isira-Seneviratne, @Jellby, @t3d, @erosennin, @dbedrenko, @radioxoma, @ErofeevK, @frankyifei, @arthurzam, @City-busz, @Carmina16, @Edward259, @MatoDroid, @slonm, @burunduk, @strn, @cybersphinx, @data-man, @jperon, @macnuts, @probonopd, @chrox, @cramoisi, @bbgordon, @houqp, @robert00s, @hwhw, @ClaudioVZ, @Hzj-jie, @Markismus, @fenuks Your work is present in CoolReader (some of you have been committing to koreader/crengine and then they were transfered to this repository). As a result of the ambiguous license statement in the README file, you may have been misled into thinking that the project's license is GPLv2 only. Do you authorize the use of your work in this repository under a "GPLv2 or later" license? Please read the first post.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

macnuts commented 2 years ago

I authorize the use of my work mentioned under a "GPLv2 or later" license--Sent from my Android phone with GMX Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 26.06.2022, 22:59 Aleksey Chernov @.***> wrote:

@avnik, @roshavagarga, @plotn, @band-a-prend, @zwim, @norbi24, @Isira-Seneviratne, @Jellby, @t3d, @erosennin, @dbedrenko, @radioxoma, @ErofeevK, @frankyifei, @arthurzam, @City-busz, @Carmina16, @Edward259, @MatoDroid, @slonm, @burunduk, @strn, @cybersphinx, @data-man, @jperon, @macnuts, @probonopd, @chrox, @cramoisi, @bbgordon, @houqp, @robert00s, @hwhw, @ClaudioVZ, @Hzj-jie, @Markismus, @fenuks Your work is present in CoolReader (some of you have been committing to koreader/crengine and then they were transfered to this repository). As a result of the ambiguous license statement in the README file, you may have been misled into thinking that the project's license is GPLv2 only. Do you authorize the use of your work in this repository under a "GPLv2 or later" license? Please read the first post. —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

cramoisi commented 2 years ago

Yes

Le dim. 26 juin 2022 à 23:53, macnuts @.***> a écrit :

I authorize the use of my work mentioned under a "GPLv2 or later" license--Sent from my Android phone with GMX Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 26.06.2022, 22:59 Aleksey Chernov @.***> wrote:

@avnik, @roshavagarga, @plotn, @band-a-prend, @zwim, @norbi24, @Isira-Seneviratne, @Jellby, @t3d, @erosennin, @dbedrenko, @radioxoma, @ErofeevK, @frankyifei, @arthurzam, @City-busz, @Carmina16, @Edward259, @MatoDroid, @slonm, @burunduk, @strn, @cybersphinx, @data-man, @jperon, @macnuts, @probonopd, @chrox, @cramoisi, @bbgordon, @houqp, @robert00s, @hwhw, @ClaudioVZ, @Hzj-jie, @Markismus, @fenuks Your work is present in CoolReader (some of you have been committing to koreader/crengine and then they were transfered to this repository). As a result of the ambiguous license statement in the README file, you may have been misled into thinking that the project's license is GPLv2 only. Do you authorize the use of your work in this repository under a "GPLv2 or later" license? Please read the first post. —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/buggins/coolreader/issues/338#issuecomment-1166655498, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGVXMM4NVIO7GZTONIIG5WTVRDGOZANCNFSM5ZT5H3PA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

band-a-prend commented 2 years ago

Anyway any licence is applicable to it according to the program author will.

So you agree with the choice of @buggins? I think he will answer soon, he answered the e-mail earlier.

Yes, I agree his choise.

City-busz commented 2 years ago

Yes, I agree (the metainfo file that I committed has a CC0 license anyway).

cybersphinx commented 2 years ago

Do you authorize the use of your work in this repository under GPLv2 or any later version?

Yes.

houqp commented 2 years ago

Yes, I do.

Hzj-jie commented 2 years ago

Ok to me.

.Hzj_jie

On Jun 26, 2022 16:58, QP Hou @.***> wrote:

Yes, I do.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/buggins/coolreader/issues/338#issuecomment-1166685341, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJCE3UWQ4H6SIFXFTQAMADVRDVDVANCNFSM5ZT5H3PA. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

roshavagarga commented 2 years ago

Fine by me.

chrox commented 2 years ago

Do you authorize the use of your work in this repository under GPLv2 or any later license version?

Yes, I do authorize. Both GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ will be OK for me.

slonm commented 2 years ago

Yes, I do for any license

zwim commented 2 years ago

Yes, I authorize the change as long it may be used in KOReader.

norbi24 commented 2 years ago

I authorize it of course Thx Norbert

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022, 22:59 Aleksey Chernov, @.***> wrote:

@avnik https://github.com/avnik, @roshavagarga https://github.com/roshavagarga, @plotn https://github.com/plotn, @band-a-prend https://github.com/band-a-prend, @zwim https://github.com/zwim, @norbi24 https://github.com/norbi24, @Isira-Seneviratne https://github.com/Isira-Seneviratne, @Jellby https://github.com/Jellby, @t3d https://github.com/t3d, @erosennin https://github.com/erosennin, @dbedrenko https://github.com/dbedrenko, @radioxoma https://github.com/radioxoma, @ErofeevK https://github.com/ErofeevK, @frankyifei https://github.com/frankyifei, @arthurzam https://github.com/arthurzam, @City-busz https://github.com/City-busz, @Carmina16 https://github.com/Carmina16, @Edward259 https://github.com/Edward259, @MatoDroid https://github.com/MatoDroid, @slonm https://github.com/slonm, @burunduk https://github.com/burunduk, @strn https://github.com/strn, @cybersphinx https://github.com/cybersphinx, @data-man https://github.com/data-man, @jperon https://github.com/jperon, @macnuts https://github.com/macnuts, @probonopd https://github.com/probonopd, @chrox https://github.com/chrox, @cramoisi https://github.com/cramoisi, @bbgordon https://github.com/bbgordon, @houqp https://github.com/houqp, @robert00s https://github.com/robert00s, @hwhw https://github.com/hwhw, @ClaudioVZ https://github.com/ClaudioVZ, @Hzj-jie https://github.com/Hzj-jie, @Markismus https://github.com/Markismus, @fenuks https://github.com/fenuks Your work is present in CoolReader (some of you have been committing to koreader/crengine and then they were transfered to this repository). As a result of the ambiguous license statement in the README file, you may have been misled into thinking that the project's license is GPLv2 only. Do you authorize the use of your work in this repository under a "GPLv2 or later" license? Please read the first post.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/buggins/coolreader/issues/338#issuecomment-1166643814, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACTACPPO2JGMKQ7RNMRY5DTVRDADFANCNFSM5ZT5H3PA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

jperon commented 2 years ago

Yes, I authorize the change to any license as long it may be used in KOReader.

Jellby commented 2 years ago

Yes, fine with me.

arthurzam commented 2 years ago

Your work is present in CoolReader (some of you have been committing to koreader/crengine and then they were transfered to this repository). As a result of the ambiguous license statement in the README file, you may have been misled into thinking that the project's license is GPLv2 only. Do you authorize the use of your work in this repository under GPLv2 or any later license version? Please read the first post.

Yes, I authorize the change to GPLv2 or later version of GPL license

t3d commented 2 years ago

I authorize the use of my work in this repository under GPLv2 or any later license version

Markismus commented 2 years ago

Yes, I do.

Edward259 commented 2 years ago

Yes,I do. ------------------ Original ------------------ From: "Aleksey @.>; Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2022 04:59 AM To: @.>; Cc: @.>; @.>; Subject: Re: [buggins/coolreader] License collision (Issue #338)

@avnik, @roshavagarga, @plotn, @band-a-prend, @zwim, @norbi24, @Isira-Seneviratne, @Jellby, @t3d, @erosennin, @dbedrenko, @radioxoma, @ErofeevK, @frankyifei, @arthurzam, @City-busz, @Carmina16, @Edward259, @MatoDroid, @slonm, @burunduk, @strn, @cybersphinx, @data-man, @jperon, @macnuts, @probonopd, @chrox, @cramoisi, @bbgordon, @houqp, @robert00s, @hwhw, @ClaudioVZ, @Hzj-jie, @Markismus, @fenuks Your work is present in CoolReader (some of you have been committing to koreader/crengine and then they were transfered to this repository). As a result of the ambiguous license statement in the README file, you may have been misled into thinking that the project's license is GPLv2 only. Do you authorize the use of your work in this repository under a "GPLv2 or later" license? Please read the first post.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

frankyifei commented 2 years ago

Yes, I am happy with GPL v2 or other copyleft license

robert00s commented 2 years ago

Yes, I agree

niedz., 26 cze 2022 o 22:59 Aleksey Chernov @.***> napisał(a):

@avnik https://github.com/avnik, @roshavagarga https://github.com/roshavagarga, @plotn https://github.com/plotn, @band-a-prend https://github.com/band-a-prend, @zwim https://github.com/zwim, @norbi24 https://github.com/norbi24, @Isira-Seneviratne https://github.com/Isira-Seneviratne, @Jellby https://github.com/Jellby, @t3d https://github.com/t3d, @erosennin https://github.com/erosennin, @dbedrenko https://github.com/dbedrenko, @radioxoma https://github.com/radioxoma, @ErofeevK https://github.com/ErofeevK, @frankyifei https://github.com/frankyifei, @arthurzam https://github.com/arthurzam, @City-busz https://github.com/City-busz, @Carmina16 https://github.com/Carmina16, @Edward259 https://github.com/Edward259, @MatoDroid https://github.com/MatoDroid, @slonm https://github.com/slonm, @burunduk https://github.com/burunduk, @strn https://github.com/strn, @cybersphinx https://github.com/cybersphinx, @data-man https://github.com/data-man, @jperon https://github.com/jperon, @macnuts https://github.com/macnuts, @probonopd https://github.com/probonopd, @chrox https://github.com/chrox, @cramoisi https://github.com/cramoisi, @bbgordon https://github.com/bbgordon, @houqp https://github.com/houqp, @robert00s https://github.com/robert00s, @hwhw https://github.com/hwhw, @ClaudioVZ https://github.com/ClaudioVZ, @Hzj-jie https://github.com/Hzj-jie, @Markismus https://github.com/Markismus, @fenuks https://github.com/fenuks Your work is present in CoolReader (some of you have been committing to koreader/crengine and then they were transfered to this repository). As a result of the ambiguous license statement in the README file, you may have been misled into thinking that the project's license is GPLv2 only. Do you authorize the use of your work in this repository under a "GPLv2 or later" license? Please read the first post.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/buggins/coolreader/issues/338#issuecomment-1166643814, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFPK7QS6JKBGD5QC2KASOC3VRDADHANCNFSM5ZT5H3PA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

radioxoma commented 2 years ago

Yes. You can use my contribution to this project as public domain without attribution.

S-trace commented 2 years ago

Do you authorize the use of your work in this repository under GPLv2 or any later license version? Please read the first post.

Yes, I authorize this.

virxkane commented 2 years ago

A little more than a week ago we talked to @buggins by e-mail, but now it's quiet, but without his opinion all this makes no sense.

Of course, I'll wait for another while...

dbedrenko commented 2 years ago

Yes, no problem. Sorry for late response

ErofeevK commented 2 years ago

Yes, No problem with that.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 12:20 AM Daniel Bedrenko @.***> wrote:

Yes, no problem. Sorry for late response

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/buggins/coolreader/issues/338#issuecomment-1211018256, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADTLRR6YFDOLTTNVE25Q6FLVYPQEPANCNFSM5ZT5H3PA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

buggins / coolreader

License collision #338