Is license of crate.js is GPL?

[stain]

This tool/library is GPL3 licensed, which means anything "linking" to it also has to be GPL.

As a command line tool that is probably OK, as a Javascript library probably not so good. (any NPM project including ro-crate-js has to also be GPL3). But that is of course a valid license choice of the copyright holder.

This issue is about how the HTML generated includes a <script> tag referencing https://data.research.uts.edu.au/examples/ro-crate/examples/src/crate.js which presumably is generated from here and thus would be GPL? It is unclear because the file there (and the RO-Crate it is in) do not have any license declared and thus is by default closed source with regular copyright (can't be copied).

Now if it crate.js is also GPL - which I would suspect since it includes large parts of ro-crate-js, it would mean any ro-crate-preview.html generated by this tool (which "links" to include that script at runtime) is also GPL3, which I would argue is an unfair license enforcement on RO-Crates wanting to use this tool.

(Comparatively Microsoft Word do not enforce a Microsoft license on docx files it makes!)

As copyright holder, would UTS consider relicensing crate.js (and the files it is made from) to something like Apache License 2.0, BSD 2-Clause or MIT so that it can be more freely embedded in RO-Crates?

Tagging @spikelynch @ptsefton