Licensing

[doismellburning]

The current license is seven shades of awful (it's not free, it's not Debian compatible, etc.)

This is particularly poignant in light of the Bukkit events aka "why I do not currently have a server running katharosada/botchallenge".

IMO we want upstream to license it as something more standard (please lets have the AGPL/GPL/Apache/MIT fight in another issue) - I believe the current license comes from the fact the original distribution included a Minecraft binary, hence woe. We are now addressing only the Python client bundled in that; getting that under a better license should hopefully be easier.

If we do this, we then want to distribute under it ourselves, which requires all those who have contributed thus far to agree to license their contributions accordingly. For this reason I think we want to sort this sooner rather than later.

@bennuttall I'm guessing you have the relevant contacts to have this conversation with? (If not / if you're busy etc., lmk, I'm happy to attempt to handle this)

[dbrgn]

Regarding licensing, when it's something education-related, I'd usually vote for something GPLish (for philosophical reasons). MIT would also be OK for me though.