Provide Proper Licensing

[elbenfreund]

The old project did not really provide proper licensing information. What we have is some basic copyright references. This puts us in a tight spot as the license status of this repository is actually not clear at all. One could argue that by providing the extension via extensions.gnome.org GLP2 applies (as it is required in order to be published there).

In order to at least move forward we will do the following:

• [x] Provide a LICENSE.rst file putting the entire repo code under GPL3.
• [x] Put License boilerplate on top of each file.
  • This is shaky at best as long as the following things are not sorted out, but at least it provides a starting point.
• [ ] Get in touch with the principal authors of the codebase so far as mentioned in metadata.json in order to clarify.
• [ ] Best case scenario would be to have the original authors assign copyright to the current project in order to:
  • Make applying the 'new' LICENSE valid
  • Make the new LICENSE enforceable."Only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license". The argument runs similar to the one for CLAs.
• [ ] Make sure all c/p 3rd party code that is used throughout the codebase is marked as such and its license is checked!

[a-m-s]

I'm not a "principal author", but you're welcome to consider my small contribution GPLv2 or later.

[a-m-s]

Continued from #182 ....

I understand you think, committing also assigns copyright, but it simply does not. Without assigned copyright however, the license is not enforceable and hence obsolete anyway.

I absolutely do not think that, and I don't think your CLA does what you think it does. It does not assign copyright. It does grant a license to do stuff with the code, including possibly changing the license.

My point is that you don't need it.

The GPL alone grants the right to distribute, make derivative works, and move to a later version of the GPL (as long as the proper words are included in the file at the time of the submission).

The GPL protects my rights not to have my contribution re-licensed and used for commercial gains, or whatever. Your CLA undermines that.

As far as I can tell, the GPL also makes the CLA clauses regarding patents and warranties redundant.

[elbenfreund]

I absolutely do not think that,

First of all, my apologies for misrepresenting you.

I don't think your CLA does what you think it does.

That seem indeed to be true. If you are correct, the only relevant "contribution" would be the ease of re-licensing if one ever to wished. Something I understand one may or may not find advantageous.

My primary goal was indeed copyright assignment (as a complement to licensing). I will have to look into this and remain grateful for you pointing out this potential misconception of mine.