Relicense Kitsune

[aumetra]

This PR relicenses the repository under the AGPLv3 and the contents of the lib/ directory under an MIT/Apache-2.0 dual-license.

---

This is a draft for now. After exiting the draft status, we will collect the consent of contributors for the relicense (while this isn't strictly required, I'd much rather be on the safe side here).

---

Closes #477

[aumetra]

Should we add the license information into the LICENSE file?

[aumetra]

Added a clarification file with a table of the components and their respective licenses.
An open question is still: AGPL-3.0-only or AGPL-3.0-or-later?

For now I simply declared it as AGPL-3.0-or-later but I'm not sure of that yet?

Rendered

[aumetra]

Now for the fun part that I wanna do even though it's not 100% required

---

The new license structure will look like this:

License structure

The Kitsune monorepo contains differently licensed items:

Component	License (SPDX identifier)
lib/ directory contents	MIT OR Apache-2.0
Anything else	AGPL-3.0-or-later

If you agree that your works are relicensed under these new terms, please comment "I agree to the relicensing terms stated above" or something of the like.

• @aumetra
• @zeerooth
• @tesaguri
• @perillamint
• @qarnax801 (renamed to @xenophorium)
• @Nemo157
• @SlimeyIceCream
• @alexohneander
• @Houkime

[aumetra]

I agree to the relicensing terms stated above

[ghost]

I agree to the relicensing terms stated above.

[perillamint]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

I agree to the relicensing terms stated above
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEARYKAB0WIQQAEgUTRRqsTe/igycRq554QmPhhgUCZbVSzgAKCRARq554QmPh
hhdWAP9SCzDOTtxj6DTHvd0MLE2v9oyKM+Ilm7919n5mS9FfIAD/WoIFR0XVPWvg
H/TEaZGpA3E4TOdyRzU7TzP6KFW6Zgw=
=BXYT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Nemo157]

I agree to the relicensing terms stated above

[tesaguri]

I agree to the relicensing terms stated above.

[tesaguri]

Here're some legal-ish nits, though I'm not a lawyer and this review do not constitute legal advice (just in case!). Also, these nits are not to annul my agreement to the relicensing as previously stated (again, just in case!).

Also, I think the subprojects should each have (a symlink to) the respective LICENSE file because, otherwise, the resulting .crate files won't include the licence files so the recipients of the packages won't receive the licence. (Well, this could've been done at any time technically, but I think it's best to do it while we're at it.) I think futures-rs is a good model for multi-crate projects like Kitsune.

[Houkime]

I agree to the relicensing terms stated above.

[zeerooth]

I agree to the relicensing terms stated above.

[aumetra]

Prepared a relicense without the need of all contributors declaring that they agree with relicensing their contributions.
We will ship a disclaimer in the LICENSE.md file about the fact that Kitsune used to be MIT licensed and include the original license text.

---

Did that in the case that I continue to fail to get a hold of @SlimeyIceCream which I didn't manage to for around a week(?) now.

[SlimeyIceCream]

I agree to the relicensing terms stated above.
Im so sorry for my late reply & any issues it's caused, my dumbass saw this in my email, read the title and thought "oh it's probably fine I dont need to worry about this"

[aumetra]

@SlimeyIceCream Don't worry, all's good! Thanks for giving the okay!