@DylanMcreynolds noted that the README mentions a GPL license but the link to a license file is broken.
If there is still room to consider (re)licensing, you might consider a BSD-compatible license such as 3-clause BSD. This would match what we have chosen for the bluesky projects. GPL can make legal departments nervous because of the way it "inflects" projects: if any part is GPL, the whole thing must be GPL. It prohibits using the code as a component inside a closed-source, for-profit product.
@DylanMcreynolds noted that the README mentions a GPL license but the link to a license file is broken.
If there is still room to consider (re)licensing, you might consider a BSD-compatible license such as 3-clause BSD. This would match what we have chosen for the bluesky projects. GPL can make legal departments nervous because of the way it "inflects" projects: if any part is GPL, the whole thing must be GPL. It prohibits using the code as a component inside a closed-source, for-profit product.
In our choice of BSD we followed the bulk of the scientific Python ecosystem, which in turn was highly influenced by this post by the late John Hunter, original maintainer of matplotlib. http://nipy.sourceforge.net/nipy/devel/faq/johns_bsd_pitch.html
On today's phone call, the EPICS license was also mentioned. BSD is much more widely recognized so more likely to be accepted by lawyers.