MIT license added

[comradekingu]

Needs approval from contributors.
If that includes me, I approve.

[cassidyjames]

I don't think GPL is appropriate for documentation, but I'm not entirely sure. I would think a Creative Commons license would make more sense as it's largely prose?

[comradekingu]

@cassidyjames
It isn't a perfect fit, but it ensures internal compatibility with an ecosystem that is mostly all A/GPLv3+.
https://l10n.elementary.io/accounts/profile/#licenses has no CC licenses, which is great, because "CC license" doesn't mean anything. GPLv3+ works fine in other projects.

One could go something like GNU FDL, or https://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ but then again what is that, is it compatible, and is it tested in court, and whatever else.

[comradekingu]

@cassidyjames
Someone opted for the weak MIT license for /Website translations, so went with that.
Can be changed for the better later on. No license proliferation

[chances]

@cassidyjames Has it been decided that these docs are under the MIT license?