Relicense gdbstub under dual MIT/Apache-2.0

[daniel5151]

Inspired by bevyengine/bevy#2373 and bevyengine/bevy#2509

When I released gdbstub 0.1, I didn't think too much about which license to use, and just picked one that seemed reasonable - namely, the MIT license. Over time, as I've gotten more familiar with crate maintainership and open source licensing, I've come to realize that it'd probably be a good idea to switch over to the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license that most of the Rust ecosystem uses.

For more context around the Why behind this relicense, check out bevyengine/bevy#2373

This isn't urgent by any means, but I might as well get the ball rolling in case there are some contributors who are a bit slow to respond.

If you are mentioned in this issue, I need your help to make this happen

To agree to this relicense, please read the details in this issue, then leave a comment with the following message:

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

If you disagree, please respond with your reasoning. Anyone who doesn't agree to the relicense will have any gdbstub contributions that qualify as "copyrightable" removed or re-implemented.

What will this look like?

After getting explicit approval from each contributor of copyrightable work (as not all contributions qualify for copyright, due to not being a "creative work", e.g. a typo fix), we will do the following:

• Change the LICENSE file to describe the dual license. Move the MIT license to docs/LICENSE-MIT. Add the Apache-2.0 license to docs/LICENSE-APACHE
• Update the gdbstub and gdbstub_arch Cargo.toml files to use the new "MIT OR Apache-2.0" license value
• Add a License section to the main readme

Note: I do intend to keep the Copyright (c) <year> Daniel Prilik line in the licenses. Please let me know if you're strongly opposed to this.

Contributor checkoff

• @bet4it
• @daniel5151
• @DrChat
• @fzyz999
• @jamcleod
• @keiichiw
• @mchesser
• @sapir
• @starfleetcadet75
• @thomashk0
• @Tiwalun

Contributors with "obsolete" changes

(no need for approval)

• iburinoc

Contributors with "trivial" changes that are ok to keep

(no need for approval)

• JamesHageman
• pheki

[DrChat]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

👍

[fzyz999]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

[mchesser]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

[Tiwalun]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

[keiichiw]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

[thomashk0]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

[sapir]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

[bet4it]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

[jamcleod]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

(Sorry for taking so long to reply, github is very bad about notifying me!)

[daniel5151]

pinging @starfleetcadet75, as it seems you're the last one who needs to sign off.

[starfleetcadet75]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

Also sorry for taking so long