Unmatched license in package.json and GPL2 LICENSE.md

[Saxson]

I want to import this package for our team but find the version of GPL is unmatched in package.json and GPL2 LICENSE.md. 3.0 in package.json and 2.0 in .md

[fallenpegasus]

I've just encountered the same issue.

The package was licensed to GPL2 on June 30 2015 in commit c62f9fa by adding the LICENSE.md file containing the GPL2 license text, and by declaring "GNU GPL" in the package.json file, with the commit comment "add a more official license".

In the next commit, with the comment "fix license stuff for npm", the package.json is changed to say "GPL-3.0", which is incorrect and confusing given the continuing presence of the GPL2 license text, which continues to cover the package and all contributions to it.

I suggest changing the license declaration to "GPL-2.0", to match reality.

If you wish, I can prepare a PR to do that.

[nothingismagick]

@rossPatton - Do you have any comment on this? It still seems to be the issue. Also, would you perhaps consider offering this as a dual license GPL-3 / MIT ? I know that @SimenB is the new project owner / maintainer - so I suppose that is something that both of you would have to agree on.

[SimenB]

I'd be happy to move to MIT or something, but I'm not sure of the legal implications of doing that. Is it just a matter of changing?

[nothingismagick]

Technically, there has NEVER been a viable license (see @fallenpegasus comment above), so all claims against you are null and void from a legal standpoint. That should have been resolved before any submissions were made.

However, it would still be fair to notify past contributors that the license issue is now being finally resolved. Because of this "late" resolution, I recommend using both the MIT and GPL-3 license, which requires the end-user to declare which version of it they are using.

One way to notify them would be to name them with their Github handles in the MR / PR.

[nothingismagick]

Also, you technically need a copyright year and authors' name(s) at the top of the LICENSE file...

[the-j0k3r]

Technically, there has NEVER been a viable license (see @fallenpegasus comment above), so all claims against you are null and void from a legal standpoint. That should have been resolved before any submissions were made.

Technicality: GPL2 (or later) can be upgraded to GPLv3 but you cant have conflicting licenses.
In this case, the license on main repo root is what is binding.

Also, you technically need a copyright year and authors' name(s) at the top of the LICENSE file...

Technically no, copyright year is set usually when the code was first published, and ppl that keep updating the year is just confusing. See https://www.google.com/search?q=copyright+year

Also copyright is outright from inception of the code being published.

More reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths

Re: license changes

As the owner of the original code you can decide to change the license model from whatever to whatever you like.
This is assuming that you are the sole author.

When ppl contribute to a project they contribute to a license model, e.g gplv2, and they own the copyright for that code submitted/merged.

So then you need to contact all contributors and ask for their permission to change the license type or upgrade. In the event the contributor has died, you need to obtain permission from the person who inherited the works.

Ideally projects have contribution guidelines which should IMO include a licensing model that all contributors automatically agree to upon submitting a contribution. Or like its been done now, companies like Microsoft make you sign a CLA when submitting a Pull request in order to ensure contributors are legally bound by the licensing model and to ensure contributions belong to the author of the submission, and to ensure they have sufficient rights to publish the work or derived works that contain said code.