Please consider adopting a permissive open-source license

### Current license and implications

The current `OpenDSSDirect.py` [license](https://github.com/dss-extensions/OpenDSSDirect.py/blob/d654af2055564881f10c343c94e640d0cfa6da4b/LICENSE)'s clause 3 has broad implications from an open-source point of view.

First, this license does NOT appear to be open-source (as defined by the [OSI](https://opensource.org)) as it violates one of the [criteria for open-source](https://opensource.org/osd): `5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups`. Clause 3 of the `OpenDSSDirect.py` license imposes additional source disclosure obligations specifically on "research entities" that do not apply to other redistributors.

Additionally, clause 3 may be interpreted as a *conditional* copyleft clause, whereby it requires research entities to make "the entire corresponding source code of any redistribution" publicly available under this same license. The phrase "entire corresponding source code" mirrors GPL's "Corresponding Source" language, but unlike GPL, which precisely defines the term in section 1 along with carve-outs for system libraries and general-purpose tools, this license provides no definition of "corresponding source code" or "redistribution." This creates an ambiguity. It is unclear whether the obligation covers only the source of `OpenDSSDirect.py` itself (and modifications to it), or the entire source of any larger work that incorporates it. A conservative legal reading (especially for universities) may assume the broader interpretation, making this potentially more onerous than GPL itself while lacking GPL's well-established clear interpretation.

These make the license of this project incompatible with virtually every widely used open-source license:

- With permissive ones (e.g., Apache 2.0): The conditional copyleft in clause 3 (and also the naming restrictions in clause 4) constitute additional restrictions that cannot be satisfied while distributing a combined work under Apache 2.0's terms.
- With less permissive ones (e.g., GPLv3): Clause 3's discriminatory copyleft does not fit within GPLv3 section 7's enumerated list of permitted additional restrictions (and also clause 4's naming requirements go beyond what section 7 (c) allows).

### Alternative license

I would like the maintainers to consider adopting a permissive open-source license instead, like Apache 2.0 or BSD 3-Clause.

OpenDSS itself is licensed under a [BSD license by EPRI](https://sourceforge.net/projects/electricdss/), and other Python bindings within the `dss-extensions` organization adopt BSD 3-Clause as well.

cc. @kdheepak @PMeira