switch license from isc to mit/apl2.0

[koivunej]

I'll be following up with PRs to other repos. Changes:

• Cargo.toml: copied from https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/blob/master/Cargo.toml#L8
• LICENSE-MIT, LICENSE-APACHE copied from cargo tree few minutes ago
• README.md: written by myself

I'll still need to check that the readme links work as I didn't copy those for some reason :)

I am requesting reviews from all committers who I was able to find with git log --format="%aN <%aE>"| sort -u except for @austinsheep ... Unsure why I am not able to add you, but please review and approve:

Please add a comment like if you approve (as noted by vmx):

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

Background for this change is to align the license with other IPFS projects (see previous discussion for go-ipfs) triggered by rust-ipfs grant getting merged.

[koivunej]

Ok to switch licenses

[vmx]

A more formal approval would be (that's from ipfs/js-ipfs#2624):

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

[koivunej]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

[aphelionz]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

[aphelionz]

@vmx @koivunej Do we need everybody to copy and paste the approvals before we merge, or can we merge and move the approval to an issue thread or threads?

[rklaehn]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

[koivunej]

The best possible outcome is that everyone goes through the PR, agrees and copypastes the approval since there are not so many agreements needed. I think the "merge" + "tracking approvals later" was done for clippy so there is nothing inherently problematic with that but perhaps the license part of readme would then need to changed to mark when the change happened, that previous license was ISC and all that (in similar fashion to go-ipfs/LICENSE). Hopefully all that be unnecessary.

EDIT: Forgot to mention: With clippy it seems that github contributors api query was used, since my way would not cover any Co-Authored-By fields and would look only at the Author field. I double-checked that the github Insights > People shows a similar list as have either been mentioned or requested a review.

[vmx]

@aphelionz as it isn't that many people only the approval from @dvc94ch @austinsheep and @gnunicorn are needed, I would rather trying to get in touch with them through other channels, let them comment here and then merge.

@aphelionz could you please try getting their approvals?

[aphelionz]

@vmx I reached out to @austinsheep and now trying to track down @gunicorn

[aphelionz]

And by @gunicorn I mean @gnunicorn of course

[aphelionz]

@dvc94ch Procedural matter - you gotta copy/paste the following as a comment here:

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

[dvc94ch]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

[aphelionz]

That just leaves @austinsheep and @gnunicorn . I've sent messages to each of them on Gitter @vmx.

[gnunicorn]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option

[aphelionz]

That just leaves @austinsheep!

[aubaugh]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option