[Bug] This project does not have a LICENSE #21

Basic info

Irrelevant

Expected Behavior

The project does have a license.

Actual Behavior

The project does not have a license.

Steps to Reproduce

Look at the repo

(Optional) Extra info

Looking outside I see that the official projects of the Rust team are dual licensed (MIT and Apache 2.0); I don't recommend blindly emulating the Rust team since we have no idea what it does really mean.

I suggest to choose one between GPLv3, Apache 2.0 and MIT; looking at the old Python project it is licensed under MIT, maybe we do the same here?

Looking around I've found that the BSD licenses family is quite interesting and have many points in common with the MIT one (and its variations).

What I understand they (MIT and BSD) are fundamentally very similar and considered compatible with each other; they all allow redistribution of the same or modified code and provision the retention of the copyright notice and warranty disclaimer.
What differs are mostly the clauses of the BSD licenses which, depending on the one you choose they can lift the need to retain the credits of the authors or even forbid their acknowledgement for all the derived works or project that make use of it.

Finally there is a particular BSD license named "BSD Zero Clause License" (0BSD), which basically is a public-domain-equivalent license and is basically identical to the "MIT No Attribution License" (MIT-0).

There is an interesting analysis on StackExchange that sums up the most relevant differences.

Sources

Just found this interesting thread where two main Rust contributors discuss their dual-licensing choice.

One of them also introduces the BSD + Patent license, which seems a interesting alternative.