flameshot-org
License
While reviewing the PKGBUILD file I realized a discrepancy between our PKGBUILD in AUR, and also with the LICENSE file
- The local
PKGBUILDstates:GPL-3.0-or-later - The
PKGBUILDin AUR states:GPL - The local
LICENSEfile isGNU General Public License v3.0
I think we should finally take the bite and clarify the license of this project. Are we GPL-3.0-only or GPL-3.0-or-later.
Just for the reference, the following is the list of licenses that are valid in Arch and subsequently AUR: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/licenses/-/blob/main/PKGBUILD?ref_type=heads#L40
I have created a simple poll to collect general vote (please use your Github username as your name): https://framadate.org/ghxtQA1qV2ZuxxMd
I tag all the current members of the project and all the major contributors, but please feel free to tag others: @borgmanJeremy @lupoDharkael @veracioux @panpuchkov @Martin-Eckleben @holazt @hosiet @FelixJochems @jack9603301 @ElTh0r0
@mmahmoudian do you know enough about this to know if any of these would not be allowed? For example lupoDharkael may have released some of the original source under a particular license and idk if we can just change it without following up with all contributors that touched that code.
I really have no preference other than to not violate other contributors license assumptions.
I'm not a lawyer of course, but as far as I remember, some parts of the code are based on some other people's code which is transparently mentioned in the README. Perhaps @lupoDharkael can weigh in and elaborate more.
As far as the git history shows, Flameshot since inception have had the GPLv3 license file:
https://github.com/flameshot-org/flameshot/commit/79e10ef6d6d0a4218763cc4ceea2a4707ff7a2d4
The main point of this issue is to clarify if the GPLv3 license of this project which exists in the LICENSE file is aiming at GPLv3 specifically, or GPLv3 or later.
How about we just get the preferences of people and then try to ask help from FSF or FSFE if they can give us a more legal angle on this.
Just to add more context and make it easier to follow
The current state
There are three types of licenses we have:
- Those that are explicitly/initially made for Flameshot. These are licensed under:
- GPLv3
- Apache License 2.0
- Free Art License v1.3
- Those parts that are adopted:
- GPLv2 (from Lightscreen and KSnapshot )
- Those we link against:
- LGPLv3 (Qt-Color-Widgets)
The following is also in the license section of the Flameshot's README:
https://github.com/flameshot-org/flameshot/blob/58afdce7414bbe3881610042e4da3772d2d0365f/README.md?plain=1#L539-L549
About the Litescreen license:
What I understand from this text is that this is fully compatible with us choosing "GPLv3" or "GPLv3 or later".
About the Qt-Color-Widget
it has the following exception:
As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to combine this library with independent modules to produce an executable, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of any of the GNU General Public licenses, as published by the Free Software Foundation, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obliged to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.
What I understand from this text is that this is fully compatible with us choosing "GPLv3" or "GPLv3 or later".
My understanding
To me it seems that everything can be under "GPLv3" or "GPLv3 or later", and the only part that is not GPLv3 and cannot be automatically changed to GPLv3 is the ksnapshot from which few lines were copied.
As far as the git history shows, Flameshot since inception have had the GPLv3 license file:
I want to add this commit to the discussion 006a3a9 - it is short after the commit you are referring to:
This 'long' header was later replaced by 'SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0-or-later', see #1377. Seems this was applied to all src files, which had been existing that time (for some later added files, such a header is missing completely).
@ElTh0r0 Thanks for digging into this.
Seems this was applied to all src files, which had been existing that time (for some later added files, such a header is missing completely).
I believe when we finally got this worked out, we should later follow the instructions on https://reuse.software for all the source files to have a uniform setup for this project.
I personally don't like the legal issues, but unfortunately this is something that have to be done.
I sent an email to fsfe today (2025-06-16T12:53:01+03:00) and asked for guidance, and referred them to this thread. I'm sure they have dealt with this type of issue before, and can help us settle this fairly fast.
As for why I went with fsfe, I live in Finland and the footnote of this page reads:
The FSFE has extensive legal contacts in Europe, and can help locate legal experts in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Greece, Germany, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The FSFE can also provide introductions to experts in Australia, Canada, China, Israel, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and the USA.