LICENSE could be improved

[karenetheridge]

The LICENSE file in this repository is (c) Julian Berman 2012 -- is this still accurate? Probably an explicit licence (e.g. MIT or GPLv3) should be referenced, with terms described for the redistribution of the data therein.

related - json-schema-org/json-schema-spec#1160

cc @Relequestual

[Julian]

I'm not sure I follow -- is this meant to say we should mention other copyright holders at this point? That I of course agree with, but I don't follow what you mean about MIT or GPL.

[karenetheridge]

I don't follow what you mean about MIT or GPL.

Downstream packagers (e.g. Debian) want to know that they are permitted to redistribute the data.

[Julian]

Yes but this repository has a LICENSE. It is (and always has been) MIT, and is present in the repo. Is there something wrong with it in your opinion?

[karenetheridge]

Sorry, I don't see MIT mentioned in the LICENSE file? I only see a personal copyright.

[gregoa]

Line 1 of https://github.com/json-schema-org/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite/blob/master/LICENSE is a copyright statement, lines 3-19 are the MIT (or Expat) license.

[Julian]

(As above I don't think there's anything to clarify here but let me know if we misunderstood.)