Update package.json license to MIT

[srl295]

Fixes: #73

is "license": "MIT" correct for Node.js licensed code? I assume so

[mhdawson]

I see there MIT is what is in the LICENSE file but we also have the unicode-licence.txt. From https://github.com/nodejs/full-icu-npm#license its not clear if some of the files in the repo are under the unicode licence or not. I look a bit but did not find any. @srl295 could you clarify if there are files under the unidoce licence in the repo? If not I think this update is good and matches the LICENSE file but maybe we want to clarify in license section of the readme. If so then if we can we should probably list both licences in the package.json.

[srl295]

I see there MIT is what is in the LICENSE file but we also have the unicode-licence.txt. From https://github.com/nodejs/full-icu-npm#license its not clear if some of the files in the repo are under the unicode licence or not. I look a bit but did not find any. @srl295 could you clarify if there are files under the unidoce licence in the repo? If not I think this update is good and matches the LICENSE file but maybe we want to clarify in license section of the readme. If so then if we can we should probably list both licences in the package.json.

The icu4c data files (separate package) are under the unicode license and so marked.

This (full-icu-npm) repo came from ICU, so it's an "intake" from Unicode and thus previously under the Unicode license. Any new work since then can be contributed under the Node license. How do we want to handle that? does that help?

[mhdawson]

@srl295 If all of the files were covered by the unicode licence when it came in then I think they should likely just stay that way. In that case I think we should fix the LICENSE file instead of the package.json

[github-actions]

This PR seems to be stale

[AugustinMauroy]

Hey folks ! Any news on this ?

[srl295]

@AugustinMauroy i'll take a look.