Licensing issue (MIT)

[fmontesi]

@klag some of the files you authored include a MIT license header, while the rest of the project is under the LGPL. I think we discussed something at the time, but it's a bit weird that we have two licenses for the same codebase of the same distributable, isn't it? I suggest you just change these headers to our standard LGPL header. Is that ok, or was there a reason for having a different license within the project?

Here's the list of offending files according to grep:

./tools/openapi2jolie/openapi2jolie.ol:The MIT License (MIT)
./tools/jolier/jolier.ol:The MIT License (MIT)
./include/services/jester/JesterUtilsInterface.iol:The MIT License (MIT)
./include/services/jester/JesterConfiguratorInterface.iol:The MIT License (MIT)
./include/services/jester/jester_configurator.ol:The MIT License (MIT)
./include/services/jester/router.iol:The MIT License (MIT)
./include/services/jester/router.ol:The MIT License (MIT)
./include/services/json/jsonschema/JSONSchemaGeneratorInterface.iol:The MIT License (MIT)
./include/services/json/jsonschema/json_schema_generator.ol:The MIT License (MIT)

[fmontesi]

PS: in the router files I guess it started because I originally released that code as MIT with the paper https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2016.05.002, but I'm ok with releasing it also under LGPL.

[mwallnoefer]

And tools/jolie2openapi/jolie2openapi.ol (and maybe also some includes) do not contain any license header at all.

[klag]

Let's convert everything in LGPL