Cleaned up licenses, updated README and converted Intsall.txt to markdown

[RAPTOR7762]

@KjellMorgenstern Please review. Thanks a lot!

[KjellMorgenstern]

Why?

[RAPTOR7762]

Users have complained before and new people to Fritzing are confused, so it would be good to recategorize the licenses. Do note that GPL 3.0 is in LICENSE, and the rest (including CC BY SA 3.0) are in /LICENSES

[RAPTOR7762]

The entire structure:

fritzing-app/
├── LICENSE                  ← GPL-3.0-only
├── README.md
├── Install.md
└── LICENSES/
    ├── Boost-1.0.txt
    ├── CC-BY-3.0.txt
    ├── CC-BY-SA-3.0.txt
    ├── LGPL-3.0.txt
    ├── Modified-BSD.txt
    ├── OpenSSL.txt
    ├── Qt-LGPL-3.0.txt
    └── SSLeay.txt

[RAPTOR7762]

Hi Kjell, how long will deepcode-ci-bot take on average?

[KjellMorgenstern]

I think Deepcode-CI-bot is broken since it was bought by Snyk. I'll try to deactivate it.

[RAPTOR7762]

Can Kjell, thanks!

[RAPTOR7762]

Hi Kjell

Are you going to merge this?

[KjellMorgenstern]

No, i think it is quite unlikely that this can be merged. You claim this "resolves license issues" but i think this is not true. First, it would be important to clarify what license issue you are talking about. Is someone suing, or someone violating licenses?

Specifically, "users complain" doesn't seem to be a reasonable explanation of why we move and even rename license files. I hate to say this, since i had other plans than discussing copyright stuff this week: More details are needed.

[RAPTOR7762]

OK, can.

[RAPTOR7762]

Specifically, "users complain" doesn't seem to be a reasonable explanation of why we move and even rename license files

Hey @KjellMorgenstern, I get that complaints alone aren’t a solid legal reason. But this cleanup isn’t just about user griping — it’s about making sure our licensing is clear and compliant, which protects the project from potential legal issues. Ambiguous or messy licenses can lead to:

• Confusion for contributors about what they can/can’t do
• Problems for downstream projects using our code
• Increased risk of unintentional license violations

So while user complaints aren’t the core reason, avoiding future legal and community problems is. Getting the licenses tidy now means less hassle and risk later. It’s about maintaining a healthy, sustainable codebase, not just user satisfaction.

First, it would be important to clarify what license issue you are talking about. Is someone suing, or someone violating licenses?

Hey Kjell, nope, but just a quick explanation for the license cleanup:

• It helps with legal clarity — makes it easier to verify we’re complying with the various licenses.
• Easier for users, distros, and other devs to see what licenses apply.
• Makes future updates/maintenance easier since each license is in its own file.
• Doesn’t change anything legally, just organizing what’s already there.

Low-risk change, and improves transparency. Let me know if anything needs changing.

I understand that you have other plans for the week, but it will be good to do some cleanup 🧽

[KjellMorgenstern]

Other plans for the week sounds like vacation. Maybe it feels like we don't have much progress, but this is not the case. I am working on Fritzing more than 8h per day, until 1am yesterday.

I think the main problem with this PR is that 1. licensing is a complex issue on it's own. I don't think anything there is low risk. 2. there was not even an issue in github created. Or maybe there is, but it was not linked. 3. You are still anonymous to me.

[KjellMorgenstern]

I have opened #4251 to explain how to provide PRs.

[RAPTOR7762]

Hi Kjell,

Thanks for the reply, and for all the work you’ve been putting into Fritzing — I totally respect the effort it takes to keep a project like this alive.

Just to clarify, the intention behind the PR was purely to organize and standardize existing license metadata (SPDX headers, missing LICENSE files, etc.), not to make any legal changes. I agree that licensing is a complex issue, and I don’t want to overstep that. I’ve tried to document everything in a structured and reversible way, but I understand if a GitHub issue would have helped guide it better — happy to retroactively link or open one if that helps.

As for the anonymity — I understand your concern, though I hope my actions and contributions so far (both on GitHub and the forum) demonstrate that I’m committed to the community and to helping maintain clarity and consistency across the project.

Let me know if you’d like me to break the PR down further or withdraw it — either way, I appreciate the feedback.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[RAPTOR7762]

@KjellMorgenstern Tgis is a misunderstanding, as I did not change any license tezxts. It should not have any lawyers involved. I only reordered them to follow the license standardisation for GitHub. Now, it just says “Unknown and 5 others found” in the cover and not “GNU GPL 3.0 License”