MIT vs GPL License

@theo-armour ,

I have a few models that I can contribute but I just wanted to make sure that I understood the intention behind the choice of an MIT license for this repo. I have both models of existing historic buildings that I could imagine fitting nicely with the MIT license but I also some personal models of designs that have been fleshed-out over the course of architecture school with the aid of Ladybug, which I could imagine fitting well with the Ladybug-web capabilities but maybe not so well with the MIT license.

Everything else in Ladybug+Honeybee is GPL and this has put me at ease knowing that the code cannot be copied into a proprietary package that could restrict someone else's access to the capabilities. Having a GPL license here could also put me (and I imagine some others) at ease knowing that our designs won't be copied into a proprietary package.

If I am correct in understanding that this repo is really only for historic buildings and for designs for which we really don't care about the right to access, then I will just contribute the historic buildings. Otherwise, let me know your thoughts on a GPL license for this repo.

-Chris

Start by reading the repository's LICENSE linked in the issue and the existing comment discussion. Determine whether the collection's intended content and contribution terms should use MIT or GPL licensing, then document the settled policy and how contributed models should be handled.