License cleanup help

[siwinski]

I am not a lawyer or a member of Red Hat's legal team, but I noticed that the license information in this package is off. This pull request is an attempt to help clean that up based on my knowledge of other open source packages.

Changes:

• Change license file name from OFL.md to LICENSE.md because this package is dual-licensed (not just OFL) and this is the standard license file name to use
• Update README to link to the license file instead of specifying 1 of 2 licenses (and no need to list the text twice)
• Fix package.json license value
  • https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json#license
  • https://spdx.org/licenses/

Questions I still have about this package:

• Is the LGPL licensing really just 2.1 or is it 2.1+?
• Did Red Hat legal review and approve both the licensing of this package and the format of the license file?

@starryeyez024 @rethomps @castastrophe

[siwinski]

The README file also references the "SIL license" twice in its' description. Is this repo licensed under a third license as well?

[starryeyez024]

per this question:
Did Red Hat legal review and approve both the licensing of this package and the format of the license file?

Yes. I did send them this PR though.

[davelab6]

OFL-1.1 only please :)

[richardfontana]

@starryeyez024 @siwinski This should be closed in favor of the in-progress #7 - the main difference is that this keeps the OFL|LGPL dual license (even though @siwinski rightly found that peculiar) and @davelab6 is right that, at least since we're trying to fix this up anyway, we shouldn't have an LGPL license option because it's just confusing at best and no real-world user will benefit from such an option.

[siwinski]

Closing per last comment. Thanks @richardfontana !

[davelab6]

Thanks!