Matterbridge: Re- License under Copyleft

[lil5]

Reasons:

• Keep development open source.
• Force businesses that use Matterbridge to open their edits so that everyone can profit

License
The initial license offered was GPL-3.0 but has issues of strong sub licensing.
The general consensus seems to be MPL-2.0.

Requirements to relicense

• [ ] ask all contributors if this change would be OK for them to change license.

Edits:

• change title from GPL3 to Copyleft
• add requirements & license header

[patcon]

Interesting. I have my own feelings on this, but curious to hear @42wim's thoughts.

[benrob0329]

The GPL is one of those licenses I've always felt is much more complicated than it needs to be, while not defining some basic things (like attribution).

[lil5]

@benrob0329 could you suggest any other license at does _require_ edits to be open

[lil5]

https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4577/does-gplv3-require-attribution

[benrob0329]

I retract my statement, it was my knowledge that the GPL only required copyright notices inside the source code.

[42wim]

I've chosen the current license exactly because it's more permissive and therefor possibly encourages more people to work on it.
Maybe MPL could be a good middleground.

[lil5]

After a bit of research MPL 2.0 looks great :+1:

[jwflory]

Maybe MPL could be a good middleground.

The MPL 2.0 is my preferred license.

The MPL permits others to use the work for any purpose, distribute the work, and combine it independently from proprietary work. However, if any _changes_ are made to the work, those changes must also be made open source. I prefer this license because it gives flexibility for others to reuse this work for any purpose (even combining it with proprietary works, unlike the GPL), but if changes are made to original source material, those changes must also be open sourced.

_See tldrlegal.com for more._

Here's a neat README badge:

[lil5]

ask all contributors if this change would be OK for them to change license.

Is the correct?

[benrob0329]

I've always felt that projects should have a contribution clause that grants the repository owners the ability to change the licensing terms at a future date because of how many projects have ended up needing to do it.