Clarify licensing terms; Consider open source option

[Chris Fuller]

The library artifact is currently published under Atlassian's Closed-Source licensing, but there currently is no LICENSE.txt either in the source or the final artifact to let consumers know the licensing terms.

Preliminary talks with the legal team on OSR-948 (On "hello", an Atlassian-internal system) suggested that making this library open-source might also be an option.

Either way, we need to be clearer about the licensing terms so that both Atlassian and any external users of the library can be assured of our respective intellectual property rights.

[Chris Fuller]

Okay, I have a bit more clarity now. I will pursue Open Source approval for this library, but in the meantime:

This library is part of the Atlassian Platform, and is licensed to external developers under Section 3 of the Atlassian Developer Terms.

I will add this information to the jar file, Javadocs, and Wiki.

[Chris Fuller]

The latest artifacts (version 0.36.0) should now include a LICENSE.md file indicating the licensing terms.

I'm keeping this issue open until I have a firm decision on whether to pursue open-sourcing it, but this should be good enough to address the ecosystem's questions.

[Chris Fuller]

Transparency Update:

• I have manager approval to re-license this as open source software.
• I do not yet have legal approval
• If approved, there will be considerable effort to prepare the repo for public use with requirements to do things like remove any links to Atlassian-private documentation, add a code of conduct, and so on.

This last step may very well be the slowest, as I recruited some help for it, but it is not a high priority for either one of us. So while it may eventually happen, it probably won't be for at least a few months, if not longer.

It will be easier to justify the effort if there is evidence that the outside world actually wants to see the library open-sourced, so please vote for/watch this issue if this is an effort you wish to support.