Add a license

[tcompa]

Branching from #13

Here is the full whitepaper by the Linux Foundation: Docker Containers for Legal Professionals (and here is its summary: Docker containers: What are the open source licensing considerations?).

A relevant quote:

The license of dockerfiles versus software inside containers The Dockerfile files can be licensed under an open source license themselves. It is vital to realize that the scope of this license statement is only the Dockerfile and not the container image. For example, the Dockerfile itself can be licensed under the MIT license but describing the installation of GPL licensed software. In a typical use case, the license of the Dockerfile and the license of the described software are entirely independent.

To me this looks like we are free to use e.g. BSD-3 for this repository.

---

For the record, here are the base images that we depend on:

• python:3.11-slim for the server - MIT license
• node:20-alpine3.17 for the web client - MIT license
• postgres:15.4-alpine for the DB - MIT license

And for more advanced features (not currently under development), we may want to also use

• rancavil/slurm-master:19.05.5-1 and rancavil/slurm-node:19.05.5-1 for the SLURM part - no known license

[tcompa]

Also: Docker Desktop licensing is not relevant for this repo. That's just one application to use this repo, but it's not part of what we release.

[jluethi]

Sounds good. So I'd say we can also add a BSD3 license to our repo. And eventually figure out what the slurm options are and whether that container can be used in our setup.