chore: add dual MIT/Apache-2.0 licence - #210

Linear issue

V2-849 (rollout) / V2-850 (the licensing decision)

Risk tier

• T0 — docs / tooling / CI / pure UX-output. Repo CI only.
• T1 — client-only, no network-facing behavior change. CI + prod compat smoke.
• T2 — node/client logic with behavioral surface, no protocol/format/economics change. Dev testnet + ADR.
• T3 — protocol / storage format / payments / routing. T2 evidence + adversarial testing.

Compatibility

• Wire: none
• Storage: none
• API: none

Semver impact

• breaking
• feature
• fix

Test evidence

No code changed. This adds licence files only and a license field in package.json, so there is nothing to build or test. Verified both files are present at the repo root and correctly named.

New dependency

none

ADR

n/a

Mitigation / rollback

Revert the PR. Nothing depends on these files at build or run time, so reverting restores the previous state in a single commit.

What changed

This repository had no licence file. A public repo without one is not open source — under default copyright it is "all rights reserved", and GitHub's terms grant visitors only the right to view and fork within GitHub. No right to use, modify or distribute.

This adds LICENSE-MIT and LICENSE-APACHE at the repo root, copyright The Autonomi Foundation S/A.

Also sets "license": "MIT OR Apache-2.0" in package.json, which had none.

The reason for using MIT/Apache-2.0 and moving away from GPL 3.0 is purely allowing anyone to build anything from our code, even proprietary etc. if we are GPL we insist their projects must be GPL as well.

Bottom line, builders want it.

Per-file copyright attributions were left as they are throughout — they record who held copyright when the code was written. Only the licence grant text changed.