license situtation

[umlaeute]

the licensing situation seems slightly complicated (although on close inspection i think it is pretty clear):

the following files are licensed under the GNU General Public License (version 2 or later), as they have an explicit license grant in their boilerplates:

• bmt~.c
• copyarray.c
• doubledelta.c
• floatcount.c
• framescore~.c
• framespect~.c
• hasc~.c
• hssc~.c
• ihisto.c
• lcmgcd.c
• list_sum.c
• maskxor.c
• mvcf~.c
• polymap.c
• polystat.c
• positive.c
• scalefilter.c
• sieve.c
• simile.c
• simile~.c
• steady.c
• valve.c
• voicing_detector~.c
• wavecutter~.c
• wavefolder~.c
• wavestretcher~.c
• weightonset.c
• zeroxpos~.c

the remaining files have no explicit license in their boilerplate, and I assume they are therefore covered by the BSD 2-clause license found in LICENSE:

• cup.c
• cupd.c
• floatcup.c
• groupsplit.c
• ninjacount.c
• ninjalist.c
• phasorbars~.c
• ptwo.c
• regroup.c
• rootint.c
• stavelines.c
• wfold~.c

is this correct (and intended)?

i am mainly asking, because the LICENSE makes it look like the entire sources are distributed under the BSD2 license, although the majority (28 out of 40 c-files) is not.

also, the GPL-2+ boilerplate mentions that I "should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program", which I have not. (the boilerplate says of course that I can always download it from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/, so no big deal here).

it seems to me that you are trying to change the license from GPL-2+ to the more liberal BSD2, but haven't come very far :-)
if that is correct, I also notice that at least one file is co-authored by somebody else, who would have to agree on changing the license.

finally, I think that the current LICENSE.txt file (as opposed to to the LICENSE file (without the .txt extension)), is not a valid license (or at least: it's not a free license, as it only waives all warranties, but fails to grant the user to copy, modify or even use the software).

i know that this is totally anal, and many people don't care very much.
otoh, some people do care (and Debian is such an entity).

[umlaeute]

so I think what I actually want (you to do :-)) is to reduce confusion a bit.
e.g. (if that is what you want):

• drop the invalid LICENSE.txt in favour of the valid LICENSE (possibly renaming the latter to LICENSE.txt)

• clean up the boilerplates (if needed)

• if there are still some GPL-licensed files, mention that in the LICENSE.txt with something like:

  Unless otherwise indicated within a given file, all files are distributed under the BSD 2-Clause License

  or somesuch (IANAL) at the beginning of LICENSE.txt

[umlaeute]

so far i found two co-authored files:

file	co-author
copyarray.c	Olaf Matthes
voicing_detector~.c	Nicolas Chetry