DOC: add License, Maintainers, and Funding sections

[dnicolodi]

This replaces #354.

The left-hand-side index on the documentation pages gets again a bit too long, but I cannot think to an organization of these sections that makes sense and spares top level index entries. Suggestions are welcome.

[dnicolodi]

@rgommers What's the copyright blurb we should use for the Quansight logo?

[rgommers]

What's the copyright blurb we should use for the Quansight logo?

Good question. I think the options are:

• leaving it out, or
• simply "Copyright Quansight", or
• something custom like "Copyright Quansight, approved for use by meson-python in its documentation, and including redistributions of meson-python without restrictions".

This has got to be a common question, because a ton of projects use logos like this. I'm not aware of a single canonical way to treat copyright statements though - I'll do some searching.

[rgommers]

Common question, but there is no good answer. I think it's actually an annoyance for packagers to have this logo image included, because it is the kind of thing that has to be treated with care. For most projects this doesn't come up because logos go on a website, which is kept in a separate repo from the code and docs so there's no cross-talk to an sdist and other redistributable artifacts for the software package.

The easiest thing here is to get rid of it. That's too bad, but attribution in text is also fine.

[rgommers]

LGTM modulo my couple of minor comments.

[rgommers]

also, pre-commit has a nitpick

[dnicolodi]

pre-commit complains about the Quansight logo SVG not terminating in a newline. Issue will go away if we renounce to include the logo. Indeed having third party logos in the source distribution is a pain, but it is also too bad to do not give visibility to companies that contribute to free software.

[dnicolodi]

All fixed. I've also added one more commit on top. PTAL

[rgommers]

This LGTM, thanks. Renaming Security to Packages sounds good to me, because it's not really about Security. For a section named Security, I'd expect a security vulnerability disclosure policy or some such thing.

Please consider my proposed rephrase - either way this is good to go in.