LICENSE used by misc. repositories

[annevk]

The SG has a policy for standards, but not misc. resources. Most that have a license are under CC0:

• https://github.com/whatwg/meta
• https://github.com/whatwg/platform.html5.org
• https://github.com/whatwg/web-history
• https://github.com/whatwg/spec-factory

One is unclear (looks like MIT?):

• https://github.com/whatwg/wattsi (Align LICENSE with GitHub MIT template wattsi#143)

Some lack a LICENSE:

• Needs a LICENSE participate.whatwg.org#114 (Add a LICENSE participate.whatwg.org#191)
• Needs a LICENSE misc-server#134 (Add a LICENSE misc-server#152)
• https://github.com/whatwg/participant-data (Add a LICENSE participant-data#36)
• https://github.com/whatwg/html-build (Add LICENSE file; CC Attribution 4.0 International html-build#248 made it CC-BY; Align LICENSE with the HTML Standard html-build#264 aligns it with CC-BY or BSD in software)
• https://github.com/whatwg/books (document says CC0) (Add a LICENSE books#9)
• https://github.com/whatwg/figures (document says CC0) (Add a LICENSE figures#7)
• https://github.com/whatwg/loader (somewhat inactive, but not archived) (Add a LICENSE loader#160)

Filing this per @foolip's request.

[foolip]

It would be nice if we match #114 where possible. If we end up with dual-license CC-BY and BSD 3-Clause, then applying the same to all repositories would have a certain simplicity.

However, many of these repositories will have contributions that weren't done under terms that allow us to change the license, so it'll have to be on a case-by-case basis.

[dbaron]

• https://github.com/whatwg/books (document says CC0)
• https://github.com/whatwg/figures (document says CC0)

For these two, assuming that the document's claim has been there consistently and seems plausible given the source of text when the document was started, it seems to me that it ought to be fine to add a license file that's compatible with the way the document says it's licensed.

[annevk]

OP now links (between parenthesis) to all the oustanding PRs to add LICENSE resources (and in a couple cases update them). Review appreciated.

[domenic]

Looks like we got 'em all! Nice work!