Fix REminiscence license

[fpiesche]

The original REminiscence code is not published under a specified license; the only licensing information in any of its files is a header comment reading "Copyright [years] Gregory Montoir" in some of the files. This is also true of the other reverse-engineered ports by this author. I have not been able to find mention of any specific license anywhere in the REminiscence code.

As such I don't think the REminiscence libretro core can be licensed as GPLv3 (and notably the core repo itself does not contain a license file either, so I don't think it actually is, making the information in the documentation here just incorrect).

While the original port's author was evidently okay with his code being built and redistributed by others (he links to a number of third-party homebrew console ports on his website), I think the actual licensing information on the code would need to be interpreted as an "all rights reserved" type clause rather than a copyleft license (let alone something more permissive).

I have been trying to contact the original reverse-engineered port's author to try and clarify the licensing status of any of their work and will submit a new PR with updated information if I manage to reach them and get clarification.

[fpscan]

Should we wait till then?

[fpiesche]

It is sadly looking like Gregory's work is likely to sit in "unclear license" limbo for the foreseeable future :(

I've been trying periodically through various channels and open-source groups to find people who know him for a couple of years now - one person who worked with him on ScummVM mentioned that he retired in 2004.

This is why all his github repositories were suddenly archived around then (though he apparently made some minor changes last summer), and while I've found a handful of people who've worked on other projects with him, nobody has so far been able to put me in touch.

[fpscan]

@hunterk hi any input here?

[hizzlekizzle]

Hmm, yeah, I don't know where the GPLv3 thing came from. I saw one repo with a GPLv3 license (dunno whether that predates our docs saying GPLv3 or not), but I don't see anything suggesting any author-initiated open source license. I don't see any license on our repo, at least, which is in-line with what I've seen from official sources.

I think it's probably prudent to remove the GPLv3 from our docs page (maybe even leave the old text with a strikethru to be clear that it's changed) unless/until we hear otherwise, but I don't think we need to change how we're distributing it unless/until the author asks us to stop (which we would do, obviously), based on their approval of various other projects, as fpiesche mentioned.

Some downstream projects may want to stop distributing it, which is also fine.