Amendment to licensing contract ( Refer to Issue #5 and PR #100 for more info )

[Daasin]

I was looking over the discussions on the licensing and tried to address them as best I could with an amended file and added clarity but wanted to run it by here first and get some thoughts before I open any kind of pull request 🙂

One example being where someone said that MIT doesn't deal with patents even though in precedent for multiple jurisdictions (inc European) it may be implied by the contract itself. #5
@nuta

Amendments Presented:

[Daasin]

There is also the potential discussion of a CLA for down the road in the future, could apply to all pull-requests/commits & be added in as part of the "Contributor Guidelines" in a relatively easy way.

Makes it simple to change license with a vote in the future if the fears about peoples efforts getting taken by a third-party company and going to waste remain. Could even help with those that are hesitant about the project atm aswell 🤔

An Example:
Can be done in lots of diff ways for when the group needs to change something together too 😄

• https://github.com/cla-assistant

• https://github.com/apps/cla-bot

For:

[Daasin]

Further discussion in pull request #100

[Daasin]

There is also the potential discussion of a CLA for down the road in the future, could apply to all pull-requests/commits & be added in as part of the "Contributor Guidelines" in a relatively easy way.

Makes it simple to change license with a vote in the future if the fears about peoples efforts getting taken by a third-party company and going to waste remain. Could even help with those that are hesitant about the project atm aswell 🤔

An Example: Can be done in lots of diff ways for when the group needs to change something together too 😄

• https://github.com/cla-assistant
• https://github.com/apps/cla-bot

For:

Or another easy way which has support from the Linux Foundation: https://docs.linuxfoundation.org/lfx/easycla/v2-current/contributors/individual-contributor