Currently this code base does not explicitly have a license defined. This makes it harder for users to clearly know if they are:

1. allowed to use the software
2. able to modify the code
3. redistribute any derived work

We should make sure whatever license we choose is compatible with any dependencies and/or vendored libraries.

Affects https://github.com/acemonstertoys/amt-api/blob/b408135e678ba537d29527a42f0c4b74defb34f1/package.json#L34

Let's use this issue to cover any various concerns as they arise. Questions to cover:

1. Do we want users to be able to include this in commercial products?
2. If another user were to make a commercial service from this...
   a) should they be required to make any modified sources available to the users?

Personally, I'm in favor of both of these points (it maximizes the freedom for users). The default stance for most modern open source projects is to use either Apache 2, GPLv2, or GPLv3. These don't provide any protection for users against question 2. While there has been much hand wringing in the free/libre open source software community around the "Commons Clause", the purpose is to prevent commercial use of the software at all (even if changes are distributed). If we allow commercial use with the requirement of the release of sources, then the Affero GPL may be the best answer.

To help summarize the differences, check out this comparison chart.