Add project proposal and IP for license migration

[dhruvkb]

Description

This PR adds the project proposal and implementation plan for the license changes.

Checklist

• My pull request has a descriptive title (not a vague title likeUpdate index.md).
• My pull request targets the default branch of the repository (main) or a parent feature branch.
• My commit messages follow best practices.
• My code follows the established code style of the repository.
• I added or updated tests for the changes I made (if applicable).
• I added or updated documentation (if applicable).
• I tried running the project locally and verified that there are no visible errors.
• I ran the DAG documentation generator (ov just catalog/generate-docs for catalog
  PRs) or the media properties generator (ov just catalog/generate-docs media-props
  for the catalog or ov just api/generate-docs for the API) where applicable.

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin
Version 1.1

Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors.
1 Letterman Drive
Suite D4700
San Francisco, CA, 94129

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed.


Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
    have the right to submit it under the open source license
    indicated in the file; or

(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
    of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
    license and I have the right under that license to submit that
    work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
    by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
    permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
    in the file; or

(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
    person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
    it.

(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
    are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
    personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
    maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
    this project or the open source license(s) involved.

[github-actions]

Full-stack documentation: https://docs.openverse.org/_preview/5158

Please note that GitHub pages takes a little time to deploy newly pushed code, if the links above don't work or you see old versions, wait 5 minutes and try again.

You can check the GitHub pages deployment action list to see the current status of the deployments.

New files ➕:

• https://docs.openverse.org/_preview/5158/projects/proposals/relicensing/index.html
• https://docs.openverse.org/_preview/5158/projects/proposals/relicensing/20241028-implementation_plan_relicensing.html
• https://docs.openverse.org/_preview/5158/projects/proposals/relicensing/20241028-project_proposal.html

[krysal]

Great write-up, @dhruvkb. Thanks for doing this extensive research and sharing your findings. My impression is that the overall process is correct. I just left some comments to clarify the licenses a bit more and I don't expect there to be any blocker once those little details are added.

[krysal]

Do "DAGs" include the catalog (Airflow) and the indexer workers? I'm thinking about whether they should go under application 🤔

[dhruvkb]

We classified the DAGs (i.e. our pipelines for fetching media from providers) separately from apps for two reasons:

• They are highly specific to us, and not very generalised so they don't fall under the definition of a library.
• Their primary use for folks other than us is reference implementation of an API, in which the GPL license covers it adequately.

I don't think we discussed what the ingestion server and indexer worker would be classified as, but I feel like the ingestion server falling under the default GPL license would be fair.

Applications are licensed as AGPL because they're primarily used by end-users over a network, which does not count as distribution and thus not covered by the GPL.

[krysal]

Will the Make blog be the medium for these announcements?

[dhruvkb]

I think a Make blog announcement is necessary, where we should clarify that this change does not affect the consumers of the API and users of the frontend in any way. Once the license change is done, we can also push it via marketing channels and social media, as it is good to have more consolidation and alignment within the WP ecosystem.

[krysal]

Thanks for complementing the licenses. LGTM!