Add LICENSE file

[opichals]

The MIT requires full license text to be present

Particular license terms matter (citing from babel/babel#7308 (comment)):

legally, it is not satisfactory to have the license name alone in the package.

This is also explicitly required by some licenses in order for it to take effect, such as ICS, Apache 2.0, all GNU licenses and MIT.

The MIT license requires that "the above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." By including the license in the source file, you have met this obligation.

Not specifying the license text in each package restrictedly means that no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. The name of the license alone does not "apply" the license, hence it retains the default license instead.

without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.

[jsf-clabot]

Thank you for your submission, we really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.

[sokra]

Sounds good. Could you sign the CLA?

[opichals]

@sokra Thank you!

Wrt CLA I am afraid that will take time to go though our corporate approval. As it is just the license file itself I believe you could merge this without me signing. But that is just my guess.

Or if you would be willing to fix the licensing by yourselves directly it would work for me. That way you could close this PR without merging.

[honzajavorek]

@sokra It looks like @opichals's company approval for signing the CLA might take some time. Since this is not a major contribution but essentially just copypaste from https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT, would it make sense to you if you did the change yourself? Also, it seems to me contributing a license file is legally a thin ice, as you can probably imagine, so it's better if the author himself adds it 😄

[char0n]

There is a prior precedence for merging PR with license file without signing CLA - webpack/tapable#70.

Can this be done also here, and move this forward ?

[sokra]

Thanks

[opichals]

@sokra Thank you!

To solve the #28 could you please release a minor version update npm which would include the LICENSE file?

[Eli-Black-Work]

Thanks for the work on this! :)

[kuba-kubula]

@sokra Please one more last step - do npm publish this package with the LICENSE file inside, thanks. ❤️ 👋

[sokra]

done