Choose and add a LICENSE for the cdcf-website repo

[JohnRDOrazio]

Problem

The repo has no LICENSE file and no "license" field in
package.json. By default, this means no license is granted:
the code is technically all-rights-reserved, which conflicts with
the foundation's stated open / commons mission and prevents anyone
else from using or contributing to the codebase with confidence.

Surfaced by the README badge work in #51 — the README couldn't get
a license badge because there's nothing to point at.

Why this needs board + technical council input

License choice is a governance decision, not a developer decision:

• It commits the foundation to a specific stance on permissive vs
  copyleft, on patent grants, and on what downstream users can do
• It interacts with the foundation's own governance docs and the
  vetting criteria (Unify deploy.yml and deploy-staging.yml into a single environment-parameterized workflow #46-style decisions about what we accept from
  community projects)
• It needs to be consistent across the foundation's repos so
  community contributors aren't navigating mismatched terms

Precedent in the foundation

CatholicOS/foundation-docs is licensed under Apache 2.0.
Adopting the same here would be the obvious-default for
consistency, but the technical reality is more nuanced (see below).

Technical complication: this repo has two licensing zones

This repo contains both Next.js application code and WordPress
theme/plugin code. WordPress is GPLv2-licensed, and themes/plugins
that link against WordPress are typically considered derivative
works (the WordPress Foundation's stance), so they're effectively
required to be GPLv2-compatible:

Path	What it is	License constraint
app/, components/, lib/, src/, proxy.ts, next.config.ts, package.json, etc.	Next.js standalone app (talks to WP over HTTP)	NOT a WP derivative work — free to choose
wordpress/themes/cdcf-headless/	WordPress theme	Inherits GPLv2 from WordPress
wordpress/plugins/cdcf-redis-translations/	WordPress plugin	Inherits GPLv2 from WordPress
wordpress/translate-all.php	WP-CLI script	Inherits GPLv2

So the practical license options are roughly:

1. Apache 2.0 root + GPLv2 wordpress/ — matches foundation-docs
   precedent on the Next.js side; honors WP's GPL on the WordPress
   side. Two LICENSE files (or per-directory headers). Most
   common pattern in mixed Next.js + WP codebases.
2. GPLv2-or-later everything — single license, conceptually
   simpler. More restrictive on the Next.js side than Apache 2.0;
   diverges from foundation-docs.
3. Apache 2.0 everything — clean and consistent with
   foundation-docs, but legally questionable for the WordPress
   theme/plugin since Apache 2.0 has explicit patent termination
   that GPLv2 doesn't, raising compatibility questions for the WP
   parts.
4. Dual-license on the WordPress side (Apache 2.0 + GPLv2) —
   more legally elaborate; gives downstream the choice. Less
   common; needs careful drafting.

Suggested decision points for the board / technical council

• Confirm whether the foundation's general stance is permissive
  (MIT/Apache) or copyleft (GPL/AGPL/MPL)
• Confirm comfort with patent grants (Apache 2.0 has one;
  MIT does not)
• Decide whether mixed licensing in one repo (option 1) is
  acceptable operationally, or whether we should split the
  WordPress theme/plugin into separate repos to keep this one
  under a single license
• Add "license": "<SPDX-id>" to package.json and add a
  LICENSE file (or files) at the chosen scope(s)
• Backfill license headers in source files per project
  convention (Apache 2.0 typically requires a NOTICE file +
  header in each source file; GPL is less strict about per-file
  headers but encourages them)

Related

• Surfaced during README badge work (docs: refresh deployment section for unified workflow + bump Next.js to 16 #51)
• Sister repo CatholicOS/foundation-docs is Apache 2.0
• WordPress's licensing FAQ:
  https://wordpress.org/about/license/
• TLDRLegal comparisons:
  https://tldrlegal.com/license/apache-license-2.0-(apache-2.0)
  https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v2

Out of scope

• Choosing on the developer's own authority — this is intentionally
  a governance decision
• Writing the LICENSE text(s) before that decision is made