Update LICENSE for spectec and proposals directories

[rossberg]

Fix #2049.

Are these adequate choices? WDYT @tlively, @dschuff, @conrad-watt?

[tlively]

LGTM, but maybe let's run this by proposal champions at the CG meeting tomorrow.

[eqrion]

The CCA 4.0 license (which is added to proposals/) is not compatible with the MPL. Practically speaking this would mean we'll need to be careful not to embed any text from a proposal overview or examples into Firefox. We can do that if we have to, but it would be nice to pick another license if possible.

For standards, our preferred license is a dual CC0+OWFa license. Other licenses are acceptable to us too, if one is proposed I can ask about it.

I am not a lawyer, the above is just relaying advice I was given internally.

[rossberg]

Sounds fine to me, though tbh I've got no clue how the OWFa thing works in this context, its actual text seems to require signing?

[eqrion]

I'm not sure how the OWFa thing works either. It looks like it's just for patent policy, and we are already working within the W3C patent policy, so I don't think we'd need it. The wiki page I linked to says that CC0 is approved (for Mozilla) for use by itself without OWFa, so I'd guess that'd be the cleanest.

[tlively]

Another option would be to apply the same W3C Software and Document Notice and License that we apply to the document/ directory. But CC0 is fine with me, too.

[rossberg]

Okay, I switched to CC0 for the proposals directory.