Consider changing license to MIT

[eriwen]

The reason I originally selected the Unlicense when this project began was to maximize use of the library. However, since then I've come to learn that such a license actually prevents use and contribution by some organizations because Unlicense is not an OSI approved license and is a little risky legally.

I would like to consider changing the licensing to MIT as the best, most open alternative recognized by the broader OSS community. The goal, as always, is to maximize the applicability of the software.

I want to know what you think. Any such license change will affect all stacktrace.js projects, and will be effective as of the next major version, 2.0.

Please use the 👍 and 👎 reactions or discuss below.

[webmink]

I'm not involved with the codebase but am an OSI director and am responding to being "paged" on Twitter. As it happens I recently published an article on this subject:
https://meshedinsights.com/2017/03/16/public-domain-is-not-open-source/

As you'll see, it supports your conclusion.

[steren]

See here for the official Google internal documentation about contributing to open source projects: https://opensource.google.com/docs/patching/#stuff-you-cant-do

As you see, googlers are not able to contribute easily to projects under public domain license.

I support your proposal to change the license if this library.

[oliversalzburg]

I am very much in favor of MIT. Your reasoning is spot-on.

[eriwen]

Let it be written: c76dd7b