Fix license metadata

[bfsgr]

Adds license field in packages so that linux builds ship with the correct license.
Closes #3219, Closes INS-599.

[dimitropoulos]

While we're doing this, may I ask that we also change inso to use a valid license? Right now it's Apache2, which is close, but not on the list of valid licenses https://spdx.org/licenses/. We need to change it to Apache-2.0 (or, for that matter, MIT).

@nijikokun is that ok?

In case you think this is a pedantic request, some tooling reports this when you install, e.g.:

warning package.json: License should be a valid SPDX license expression

And, if nothing else, it'd be nice to have that error go away.

[nijikokun]

Thanks for raising the issue @dimitropoulos. Let's go ahead and make sure it's properly labeled as Apache-2.0.

[bfsgr]

Thanks for raising the issue @dimitropoulos. Let's go ahead and make sure it's properly labeled as Apache-2.0.

Done 👍

[DMarby]

I am not sure whether the changes in this PR will actually resolve #3219, as it is unclear whether actually having the license in the package.json will make electron-builder correctly set the license metadata as per the following open issues, or whether we need to include a debian/copyright file ourselves or similar:
electron-userland/electron-builder#4270
electron-userland/electron-builder#3914

That said, I still think we should merge the changes in this PR regardless, but I'm not sure if we can close #3219 until we verify the resulting .deb and if further changes are needed.

[bfsgr]

I tested it locally and putting the license field in package.json did create a correctly licensed .rpm, I didn't test it to .deb but I think it's safe to assume it will be correct as well.

Just to be safe I can test it again

[bfsgr]

@DMarby Just checked it locally and yes, both .rpm and .deb build with the correct license. However I'm not familiar with metadata to .AppImage and .snap but I can look into it too

[bfsgr]

Digging deeper I've found that the .snap does not ship with a license field inside meta/snap.yaml and I was unable to find metadata inside the .AppImage. I think the bigger issue may be with the .snap package.

But solving this maybe out of scope of this PR

[develohpanda]

I'll need to double check whether we should be applying MIT or Apache-2.0; to my knowledge it is the latter, so let's hold off on merging this until confirmed.

I echo the other points raised, however, that we should definitely get this in. Thank you for raising a PR and running through those investigations! 🤗

[develohpanda]

A quick update, this is on the backlog to chase up with the right people. Until then, marking as blocked 🙂

[develohpanda]

Okay! I have some more information:

• everything that doesn't have a license should go to Apache-2.0
• everything that does have a license should stay as-is
• set the root and insomnia-app licenses to MIT (we don't want to switch the license for the main app just yet)

@reynolek please advise if this doesn't capture it correctly 🙂

[reynolek]

That looks correct from the info that I was given 👍

[bfsgr]

Okay! I have some more information:

* everything that _doesn't_ have a license should go to `Apache-2.0`

* everything that _does_ have a license should stay as-is

* set the root and `insomnia-app` licenses to `MIT` (we don't want to switch the license for the main app just yet)

@reynolek please advise if this doesn't capture it correctly slightly_smiling_face

Alright, just applied the changes, please review

[reynolek]

Approving from product perspective based on Legal team's input

[develohpanda]

Thank you for working through this!