license question (webtoolkit.aim.js / plush templates / 0.4 beta)

[jcfp]

Is there any license information on interfaces/Plush/templates/static/javascripts/webtoolkit.aim.js? Did notice the copyright statement but I can't find any terms for distribution, modification etc.

[switch]

It doesn't look like webtoolkit.aim.js was released under any specific licence. Does this mean it cannot be added to a repository?
What do you suggest, finding an alternative?

[jcfp]

For as far as I know, all copyrighted code by default cannot be distributed/modified/used at all unless permission to do so is explicitly granted. So that would be an issue for any type of use or distribution, be it in a repository or anywhere else.

Anyway, I did some more in-depth searching, and it seems the thing is under an open source license. Check the comment on February 19th, 2008 at 14:43 by "Justas" (Vinevicius?), who google claims is the author of those scripts, suggesting the GPL applies at this blog. Would be alot nicer (or even necessary) to have a more official statement and/or a proper GPL header on the files on webtoolkit.info though.

[switch]

Ok, good find. I've sent off an email for further confirmation, but I can't expect a reply by tomorrow.
In the meantime I can include the GPL license agreement in the file, however I'm stuck on whether to include v2 or v3 of the license.

Since he didn't specify which version would it be safe to assume he means v2?

[jcfp]

Ok, good find. I've sent off an email for further confirmation, but I can't expect a reply by tomorrow.

That seems to be the correct course of action.

In the meantime I can include the GPL license agreement in the file, however I'm stuck on whether to include v2 or v3 of the license.

Since he didn't specify which version would it be safe to assume he means v2?

If no specific version is given, I would go for "v2 or any later version" which also happens to be exactly what the main sabnzbd program is licensed under. But for the time being, better not do so. Although it seems save to keep using it for now (based on the info above), you are not the author and therefore can't (re)license the file. Mind you that once released under GPL, you cannot undo that - others could simply claim they got the file from you under that license even if it turns out to not be correct in your correspondence with the author.

[switch]

Got a reply back sooner than I thought, will stick the license in now.

[jcfp]

Thanks for your work, looks fixed to me