MIT license is at odds with instructions for use, puts folks at risk

[dhnaranjo]

Yowhattup. This workflow is great, solves my problem perfectly, but I am concerned that the MIT license includes the following:

blah blah subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

So to avoid violating, I have to have that license file in my repo for this specific bit of code. That's fine, but in that case, I think it'd be good to put the license info in the actual workflow file so folks acting in good faith, following the readme's instructions to copy the workflow into their repo, don't find themselves violating your copywrite.

That or change the license to one without that restriction.

Thanks for the great work.

[dhnaranjo]

Consider https://unlicense.org/, maybe?