LICENSE.txt says:
See LICENSE-MPL.txt for all code in node/, osdep/, service/, and everywhere else except ext/ and nonfree/.
java/src/com/zerotier/sdk/ isn't under ext/ or nonfree/, so by that statement it's MPL-2.0.
But 19 of the 22 .java files under that directory still carry the old
per-file header:
* ZeroTier One - Network Virtualization Everywhere
* Copyright (C) 2011-2015 ZeroTier, Inc.
*
* 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 3 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
...
(checked at tag 1.16.2, commit fc5c3ec). The three that don't carry it:
PathChecker.java, VirtualNetworkDNS.java, util/StringUtils.java — presumably added
after the license change and never given a header at all, one way or the other.
A per-file header naming GPLv3 is normally read as controlling over a repo-wide
LICENSE file, so as it stands these 19 files read as GPLv3-licensed regardless of
what LICENSE.txt says for the directory — which matters for anyone trying to use
this JNI binding under MPL-2.0 terms.
Would a header refresh to match LICENSE.txt (and headers added to the 3 files
missing one) be welcome as a PR, or is the GPL header on those 19 intentional for
some reason not reflected in LICENSE.txt?
LICENSE.txtsays:java/src/com/zerotier/sdk/isn't underext/ornonfree/, so by that statement it's MPL-2.0.But 19 of the 22
.javafiles under that directory still carry the oldper-file header:
(checked at tag 1.16.2, commit fc5c3ec). The three that don't carry it:
PathChecker.java,VirtualNetworkDNS.java,util/StringUtils.java— presumably addedafter the license change and never given a header at all, one way or the other.
A per-file header naming GPLv3 is normally read as controlling over a repo-wide
LICENSE file, so as it stands these 19 files read as GPLv3-licensed regardless of
what LICENSE.txt says for the directory — which matters for anyone trying to use
this JNI binding under MPL-2.0 terms.
Would a header refresh to match LICENSE.txt (and headers added to the 3 files
missing one) be welcome as a PR, or is the GPL header on those 19 intentional for
some reason not reflected in LICENSE.txt?