[feat] Add a license to the REPO

[Novapixel1010]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
While this is not a software issue, it pertains more to a formality that is essential for encouraging contributions from individuals. This includes assisting in bug reporting, submitting pull requests, requesting new features, and possibly even developing the code for those features. I would recommend considering the MIT or Apache 2.0 licenses, as they tend to attract a significant number of users due to their support from the open-source community. Although I also utilize software licensed under AGPL v3, I personally prefer not to discuss it at length.

Regarding your concern:

I do not want anyone to charge for Storyboarder.

While the right to charge exists, instances of individuals successfully selling a popular, free MIT or Apache licensed project without providing substantial added value are rare and typically short-lived.

Here’s the rationale:

Free Alternative: Should someone attempt to sell a standard version of a widely-used project (such as a clone of VSCodium, which is MIT licensed), potential customers can easily download the official version at no cost within moments.

Zero-Cost Barrier to Entry: Given that the source code is freely accessible, no third party can create a profitable business by selling the unmodified version. The original creator(you) will always hold the advantage as the authority, the primary distribution channel, and the main maintainer, making this version the default choice for 99.9% of users.

If this model were effective, we would see software like Immich, Memos, and others being sold successfully.

I am suggesting adding a license to the repo.

Describe the solution you'd like
I am asking for a license to be added to the repo

Then if you would like you can have CLA before you accept any pull request.

Additional context

However, I do not think this should be the standard case for end user software. In many cases, I would like to see the code of software that I use so that I can better understand how they are doing things, and if I see the opportunity, provide suggestions for enhancements. But, I do not need a license to copy their code.

After reading the statement, I find myself questioning whether a Business Source License with a specified change date might be preferable. This approach would allow for the eventual transition of the software to open source under the MIT license, alleviating concerns about code duplication once the version in question no longer provides a competitive advantage.

Here is a example outline the start of their license for quick example:

Business Source License 1.1

Parameters

Licensor:             General Outline, Inc.
Licensed Work:        Outline 1.1.0
                      The Licensed Work is (c) 2025 General Outline, Inc.
Additional Use Grant: You may make use of the Licensed Work, provided that
                      you may not use the Licensed Work for a Document
                      Service.

                      A “Document Service” is a commercial offering that
                      allows third parties (other than your employees and
                      contractors) to access the functionality of the
                      Licensed Work by creating teams and documents
                      controlled by such third parties.

Change Date:          2029-11-16

Change License:       Apache License, Version 2.0

Some word of caution the open source community do not like this license and you may not get much support using this license. But whatever you do please choose a license and stick to it the only reason I suggest use BSL is because of the license being able to change eventual to a less restrictive license. License stability is paramount, as changing licenses later (especially to a more restrictive one) can alienate the community, disrupt dependencies, and create major legal uncertainty for users.

I would like to point out that AGPL solves the cloud competition problem by requiring anyone who offers the software as a service (SaaS) over a network to release their modifications to the public. It achieves a level of commercial control, but through strong copyleft rather than commercial restriction. Just case some tries to turn this into a web app instead of a desktop app.