feat: update to MIT license

[lynnmercier]

We're moving MDC Web to the MIT license.

At Google we prefer to license new projects under the Apache 2 license because we feel it gives the most rights to developers and creates a strong legal scaffold for projects to grow and thrive. However, what we've heard from users in the MDC Web community is that you prefer the MIT license. It's more widely used within JavaScript projects, it's shorter, and it’s better understood.

[mdc-web-bot]

All 353 screenshot tests passed for commit a973acf vs. master! 💯🎉

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@ddd4511). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master    #3376   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   98.45%           
=========================================
  Files             ?      123           
  Lines             ?     5181           
  Branches          ?      639           
=========================================
  Hits              ?     5101           
  Misses            ?       80           
  Partials          ?        0

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/mdc-menu-surface/index.js	99.02% <ø> (ø)
packages/mdc-menu/constants.js	100% <ø> (ø)
packages/mdc-animation/index.js	100% <ø> (ø)
packages/mdc-drawer/temporary/constants.js	100% <ø> (ø)
packages/mdc-chips/chip-set/constants.js	100% <ø> (ø)
packages/mdc-ripple/index.js	100% <ø> (ø)
packages/mdc-line-ripple/index.js	100% <ø> (ø)
packages/mdc-base/foundation.js	100% <ø> (ø)
packages/mdc-list/index.js	98.78% <ø> (ø)
packages/mdc-checkbox/index.js	100% <ø> (ø)
... and 55 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ddd4511...2222a39. Read the comment docs.

[kfranqueiro]

This should also update all instances of "license": "Apache-2.0" across package.jsons to "MIT".

Also, I guess we need to update the license blurb in every single source file... (I'd suggest going one file type at a time since the comment syntax is different for each.)

I imagine doing this will cause every package to get a version bump by lerna on the next release; I'm not sure if there's a way to avoid that (but I probably shouldn't be worrying about it anyway).

[mdc-web-bot]

All 353 screenshot tests passed for commit d8c6fb1 vs. master! 💯🎉

[mdc-web-bot]

All 353 screenshot tests passed for commit 55555f5 vs. master! 💯🎉

[mdc-web-bot]

All 353 screenshot tests passed for commit cb35cb6 vs. master! 💯🎉

[mdc-web-bot]

All 353 screenshot tests passed for commit 79b8e54 vs. master! 💯🎉

[mdc-web-bot]

All 353 screenshot tests passed for commit 2222a39 vs. master! 💯🎉

[mdc-web-bot]

All 353 screenshot tests passed for commit 2222a39 vs. master! 💯🎉

[HSH73]

Hi, we're using MDC web and I was informed that a scan with ORT detected references to both MIT but also Apache in many components, despite the whole base was moved from Apache to MIT. For instance, in material base 15.0.0-canary.684e33d25.0 the scan detects

The MIT License
Copyright (c) 2014-2020 Google, Inc. Copyright Google LLC All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2016 Google Inc. Copyright 2019 Google Inc. Copyright 2018 Google Inc. Copyright 2021 Google Inc.
(...MIT license Text...), bu then as well
#Apache-2.0
Information found in:package/dist/mdc.base.js (https://www.npmjs.com/package/@material/base/v/15.0.0-canary.684e33d25.0?activeTab=code)
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); (,,,,)

We are struggeling to understand which license applies, or both?