Inconsistent LICENSE

[Slamdunk]

1. composer.json assert a BSD-2-Clause
2. All files assert a MIT license
3. All files assert a non-existent LICENSE.txt file
4. LICENSE file doesn't assert a MIT statement

I can make a PR if you point me what license you want 😸

[rquadling]

I'm not the project owner, but I am one of the contributors.

My personal opinion on licensing is that it is beyond pointless. I am in no way able to react to, be aware of or request compensation for any infringements of the license.

If common sense and fair play isn't enough to guide someone on using this software, then I'd prefer they didn't use it and thereby reduce any exposure to frivolous lawsuits to nil.

[localheinz]

Also take a look at .php_cs.

[rquadling]

As the copyright and rights are all owned by @beberlei, it will be up to him to decide upon the licensing.

[lcts]

Hi, would it be possible to have clarification on this @beberlei (or other contributors)? I'd like to package this library for Fedora, but currently cannot due to these inconsistencies.

My interpretation is that the intended license is BSD-2-clause, is that correct?