Add licenses

[SebastianZimmeck]

There are a number of repos that do not have licenses. For the time being, I am adding the MIT license to those. If anyone has other suggestions, please let me know. I am flexible. But every repo should have a license.

[SebastianZimmeck]

I added the MIT license to each of the repos.

[SebastianZimmeck]

@efranklinfowler, if there is any repo that should have a different license, feel free to let me know, and I will add that.

[efranklinfowler]

Thanks @SebastianZimmeck. I confess that I don't know much about the differences between MIT and other open access ones (did we talk about creative commons in the past -- I don't recall?), so I would probably defer to your expertise, but I'm also happy to review them if that would be helpful?

[SebastianZimmeck]

I would consider the MIT license to be a middle of the road option. It is widely used and, special circumstance aside, a good default option. It basically says:

• You can use and distribute our code, data, etc. in any way you like including in proprietary software
• Use at your own risk. We do not assume any liability
• You have to attribute us (with "us" being the "Wesleyan Media Project")

Given no special circumstances, especially, third party code that we use requiring a non-MIT license, I would go with the MIT license.

@atlasharry, @bella-tassone, and @a-jacewicz, can you check your repos and identify if any of the third party software, images, etc. used there require anything beyond MIT? Especially, is there any GNU GPL license or other copyleft license?

[SebastianZimmeck]

I will make a suggestion for a modified MIT license/alternative MIT-like license with commercial use restriction.

[SebastianZimmeck]

I updated the license in all repos. It is now MIT modified by the Commons Clause.