Re-license project under permissive terms

[yottahmd]

We plan to move from GPLv3 to a more permissive license (LGPL-3.0, MIT, or Apache-2.0) to ease wider usage. Please comment if you have concerns or blockers, or leave a 👍 to show support.

I’ll confirm there’s no GPLv3-only code remaining before we switch.

cc: @ghansham @Arvintian @dependabot @kriyanshii @arky @thefishhat @Kiyo510 @jonnochoo @zph @liooooo29 @x4204 @fishnux @Sarvesh-11 @rocwang @rafiramadhana @Lewiscowles1986 @triole @x2ocoder @stefaan1o @ArseniySavin @garunitule @ddddddO @chrishoage @RamonEspinosa @lvoeg @vnghia @pdoronila @reneleonhardt @yarikoptic @fruworg @zwZjut @vkill @vhespanha @sapankhandwala-tomtom @Lucaslah @lat0z @hirosassa @TahirAIi @smekuria1 @SimonWaldherr @HtcOrange @KMe72 @kennethpjdyer @jerry-yuan @JadRho @eltociear @fljdin @dayne @david-waterworth @dat-adi

[vhespanha]

I'm all for it. I really like BSD-Style licenses and think they fit better than MIT or LGPL here. Have you guys considered it?

[zph]

FYI: From the places I've worked, MIT, Apache 2 or BSD licenses are always on the safe to use list, while LGPL still exists on the "may not be allowed depending on how its used". If the goal is to ease wider adoption by removing licensing barriers, I'd avoid LGPL.

[Lewiscowles1986]

I have no issue with you picking a license which fits your needs and goals. Moreover, I don't care if you make it more restrictive. I Would like you to keep source code accessible; but I also do not think I have the right to make demands of a group and hope others would be as thoughtful

[yarikoptic]

My contributions are negligible and FWIW you can take this as permission to relicense to any license which you see fit.
Specifically, given its nature etc I think BSD-3 or MIT/Expat or even Apache 2.0 would be good choices.

[dat-adi]

Yeah, I've got no issues. Thanks for asking!

[arky]

Not all of our community is on GH. Let's do bit more inclusive call out on discord as well.