diff --git a/documentation/projects/proposals/relicensing/20241028-implementation_plan_relicensing.md b/documentation/projects/proposals/relicensing/20241028-implementation_plan_relicensing.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..1ef9b831481
--- /dev/null
+++ b/documentation/projects/proposals/relicensing/20241028-implementation_plan_relicensing.md
@@ -0,0 +1,325 @@
+# 2024-10-28 Implementation Plan: Relicensing
+
+**Author**: @dhruvkb
+
+<!-- See the implementation plan guide for more information: https://github.com/WordPress/openverse/tree/19791f51c063d0979112f4b9f4eeace04c8cf5ff/docs/projects#implementation-plans-status-in-rfc -->
+<!-- This template is exhaustive and may include sections which aren't relevant to your project. Feel free to remove any sections which would not be useful to have. -->
+
+## Reviewers
+
+<!-- Choose two people at your discretion who make sense to review this based on their existing expertise. Check in to make sure folks aren't currently reviewing more than one other proposal or RFC. -->
+
+- [x] @krysal
+- [x] @obulat
+
+## Project links
+
+<!-- Enumerate any references to other documents/pages, including milestones and other plans -->
+
+- <s>Project Thread</s>
+- [Project Proposal](/projects/proposals/relicensing/20241028-project_proposal.md)
+
+## Overview
+
+<!-- An overview of the implementation plan, if necessary. Save any specific steps for the section(s) below. -->
+
+This implementation plan
+
+- describes the different code blocks in the repository.
+- lists the different goals we have for each of these blocks in terms of the
+  license.
+- lists the ideal license for each code block.
+- documents the process we will use to change the license.
+
+There are a few approaches that we can take here but the simplest would be to
+relicense the software directly. See alternatives [below](#alternatives).
+
+> In the case of a permissive software license, a new license (including
+> proprietary licenses) can be applied to the project and it can be
+> redistributed under those terms.
+>
+> - [Drew deVault's blog](https://drewdevault.com/2023/07/04/Dont-sign-a-CLA-2.html)
+
+Since Openverse is licensed under the permissive MIT license, it is possible for
+us to unilaterally and directly change the license. This would be logically
+equivalent to a new project that builds upon all of Openverse's code but under a
+GNU license.
+
+The code prior to the license change commit would continue to be available in
+the repository's history and will remain MIT licensed. It would allow people who
+disagree, or cannot comply, with the GNU licenses to be able to use code from
+before the license change under the terms of the MIT license.
+
+By doing so, we are not betraying the trust of the contributors who have
+contributed to the project as their contributions will continue to be
+open-source. We did not have a contributor license agreement (CLA) and will not
+add one. It is generally regarded negatively and indicates that the project can
+migrate to becoming closed-source in the future.
+
+> Thus, the absence of a CLA combined with the use of a copyleft license serves
+> as a strong promise about the future of the project.
+>
+> - [Drew deVault's blog](https://drewdevault.com/2023/07/04/Dont-sign-a-CLA-2.html)
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+<!-- List any succinct expected products from this implementation plan. -->
+
+The outcomes of the implementation plan will be the names of the final license
+for each code block and the process we will use to migrate the license.
+
+## Step-by-step plan
+
+<!--
+List the ordered steps of the plan in the form of imperative-tone issue titles.
+
+The goal of this section is to give a high-level view of the order of implementation any relationships like
+blockages or other dependencies that exist between steps of the plan. Link each step to the step description
+in the following section.
+
+If special deployments are required between steps, explicitly note them here. Additionally, highlight key
+milestones like when a feature flag could be made available in a particular environment.
+-->
+
+1. Determine code blocks.
+2. Determine the goals for these blocks from the license.
+3. Determine new licenses.
+4. Institute code freeze.
+5. Apply new licenses.
+
+## Step details
+
+<!--
+Describe all of the implementation steps listed in the "step-by-step plan" in detail.
+
+For each step description, ensure the heading includes an obvious reference to the step as described in the
+"step-by-step plan" section above.
+-->
+
+### Determine code blocks
+
+The Openverse monorepo consists of the following code blocks.
+
+- Libraries
+  - Attribution
+  - API client
+- Applications
+  - API
+  - Frontend
+- DAGs
+- Glue
+  - Workflows
+  - Automations
+  - `ov` (development environment)
+
+### Determine the goals for these blocks from the license
+
+- Libraries
+
+  We want our libraries to be used as broadly as possible, in both free as well
+  as non-free software. The libraries encourage good practices in terms of API
+  usage and attribution and so we do not want to limit them to just free
+  software.
+
+- Applications
+
+  We want our applications to be open-source, and forks of these applications to
+  be open-source as well. We do not want to discourage free software derivatives
+  of Openverse. We want GPL protections to apply even when these applications
+  are accessed over the Internet.
+
+### Determine new licenses
+
+- Libraries
+
+  The GNU LGPL license allows our libs to be used universally in both free as
+  well as non-free environments. Our goal is the proliferation of good
+  attribution practices and making the Openverse API easily accessible.
+
+  > using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs
+  >
+  > - [FSF](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html#:~:text=using%20the%20Lesser%20GPL%20permits%20use%20of%20the%20library%20in%20proprietary%20programs)
+
+- Applications
+
+  The GNU AGPL license requires derivatives of the API and frontend, which are
+  accessed over a network to also share source code, which is want we want.
+
+  > if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate
+  > with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code
+  > corresponding to the modified version running there
+  >
+  > - [FSF](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html#:~:text=if%20you%20run%20a%20modified%20program%20on%20a%20server%20and%20let%20other%20users%20communicate%20with%20it%20there%2C%20your%20server%20must%20also%20allow%20them%20to%20download%20the%20source%20code%20corresponding%20to%20the%20modified%20version%20running%20there)
+
+- Everything else
+
+  The GNU GPL license is a good fit for the rest of the codebase, since there
+  are no special requirements for this code (unlike apps and libs).
+
+I have audited the licenses of our dependencies (specifically those of the API
+and frontend) and they are compatible with us switching to the AGPL license.
+Additionally Airflow is licensed under the Apache license which is also
+compatible with us relicensing to GPL.
+
+### Institute code freeze
+
+We need to institute a code freeze because we need to add the commit hash of the
+last commit that will be under the MIT license to the `LICENSING.md` file.
+
+Any PRs opened before the code freeze can take one of three routes.
+
+- Be merged before the license transition and be covered by the MIT license
+- Reaffirm that they are compatible with the GNU license family and be merged.
+- Be closed without being merged.
+
+### Apply new licenses
+
+To apply different licenses to different parts of the repository, we will take
+the following steps.
+
+#### Add a `LICENSING.md` file
+
+The purpose of this file is to explain what licenses apply to which code block
+and how they are cascaded. It should look like this template (3 fields need to
+be filled out):
+
+```md
+The default license for this project is
+[GPL-3.0-or-later](https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0-or-later.html).
+
+The following libraries are licensed under
+[LGPL-3.0-or-later](https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-3.0-or-later.html) and not
+under the default license.
+
+- <libraries' names go here>
+
+The following applications are licensed under
+[AGPL-3.0-or-later](https://spdx.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0-or-later.html) and not
+under the default license.
+
+- <applications' names go here>
+
+## History
+
+All code before <commit> is available under
+[MIT](https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html).
+```
+
+#### Add/update `LICENSE` files
+
+We will update the existing root license and add the appropriate licenses for
+the code blocks that were exempted from the default and applied specific
+licenses.
+
+- `api/LICENSE` (new, AGPL-3.0-or-later)
+- `frontend/LICENSE` (new, AGPL-3.0-or-later)
+- `packages/js/api-client/LICENSE` (new, LGPL-3.0-or-later)
+- `packages/python/openverse-attribution/LICENSE` (new, LGPL-3.0-or-later)
+- `LICENSE` (MIT → GPL-3.0-or-later)
+
+#### Update license in manifests
+
+The following files contain references to the project license. These will need
+to be updated.
+
+- Python packages
+  - `.vale/pyproject.toml`
+  - `api/pyproject.toml`
+  - `documentation/pyproject.toml`
+  - `indexer_worker/pyproject.toml`
+  - `packages/python/openverse-attribution/pyproject.toml`
+- JS packages
+  - `packages/js/api-client/package.json`
+  - `packages/js/k6/package.json`
+- Other references
+  - `documentation/packages/js/api_client/index.md`
+  - `api/conf/settings/spectacular.py`
+  - `catalog/tests/factories/github/pull.json`
+
+## Communications
+
+<!-- Note any projects this plan depends on. -->
+
+Both at the start of the migration, and once the migration is completed, we will
+need to communicate the status to the
+[stakeholders listed in the project proposal](/projects/proposals/relicensing/20241028-project_proposal.md#participants-and-stakeholders).
+
+The following communication will be needed
+
+- intent to relicense
+
+  This should be communicated once this project proposal and implementation plan
+  are approved and merged.
+
+  This notification should clearly state
+
+  - the new GNU licenses that we are planning to switch to for the various code
+    blocks
+  - that the change only applies to future commits after the license change
+  - that code before the license change can continue to be used under the same
+    terms
+
+  This also gives us time to see the community's reception to the changes.
+
+  I do not anticipate any negative reactions because, unlike the license changes
+  at Elasticseach, Redis and others, we are not making the project closed-source
+  but rather making it more open-source
+  ([in a sense](https://drewdevault.com/2024/04/19/2024-04-19-copyleft-is-not-restrictive.html))
+  by adding stronger copyleft protections.
+
+  If concerns or objections are raised by this communication, we will convene a
+  discussion to address and potentially adjust the relicensing strategy.
+
+- new licenses
+
+  This should be communicated out once the license change commit is merged.
+
+  This notification should clearly state
+
+  - the new GNU licenses that we are now using the for the various code blocks
+  - that users should ensure their compliance with the terms of the new licenses
+  - that they should not use post-relicensing versions if they do not comply
+
+## Alternatives
+
+Prior to the clarification about the relicensing approach, I had considered
+dual-licensing as a viable option. All code contributed up to a specific commit
+would be licensed under the current MIT license, and all code contributed after
+that point would be licensed under the various GNU licenses we have applied to
+the various code blocks.
+
+In such cases each `LICENSE` file in the repository would have two licenses, the
+original MIT and the new GNU, with a section at the top explaining which license
+is applicable to which part of the code, based on whether it was added/modified
+before/after the cut-off date.
+
+## Design
+
+<!-- Note any design requirements for this plan. -->
+
+The communications mentioned above can use some visuals. Such visuals would be
+completely optional and subject to the availability and bandwidth of our
+designer, Francisco.
+
+## Blockers
+
+<!-- What hard blockers exist that prevent further work on this project? -->
+
+This project has no blockers but it also doesn't have any urgency to it. We
+should ideally be careful and not rush into any decisions.
+
+## Prior art
+
+<!-- Include links to documents and resources that you used when coming up with your solution. Credit people who have contributed to the solution that you wish to acknowledge. -->
+
+There is precedent for a number of web-based products switching to the GNU AGPL
+license:
+
+- [Joplin](https://joplinapp.org/news/20221221-agpl/)
+- [Plausible](https://plausible.io/blog/open-source-licenses)
+- [Grafana](https://grafana.com/blog/2021/04/20/grafana-loki-tempo-relicensing-to-agplv3/)
+- [MinIO](https://blog.min.io/from-open-source-to-free-and-open-source-minio-is-now-fully-licensed-under-gnu-agplv3/)
+
+Three of these four are respectable open-source products that we ourselves use
+at Openverse. We can refer to their approaches as the framework for handling our
+own migration.
diff --git a/documentation/projects/proposals/relicensing/20241028-project_proposal.md b/documentation/projects/proposals/relicensing/20241028-project_proposal.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..982b80863ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/documentation/projects/proposals/relicensing/20241028-project_proposal.md
@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+# 2024-10-28 Project Proposal: Relicensing
+
+**Author**: @dhruvkb
+
+## Reviewers
+
+<!-- Choose two people at your discretion who make sense to review this based on their existing expertise. Check in to make sure folks aren't currently reviewing more than one other proposal or RFC. -->
+
+- [x] @krysal
+- [x] @obulat
+
+## Project summary
+
+<!-- A brief one or two sentence summary of the project's features -->
+
+This project aims to change the license of the code in the Openverse monorepo to
+better align with the
+[GPL license used by WordPress](https://wordpress.org/about/license/) itself and
+other projects associated with WordPress.
+
+## Goals
+
+<!-- Which yearly goal does this project advance? -->
+
+This project aligns Openverse with the WordPress project. It also updates
+Openverse to use a stronger copyleft license from the GNU family of licenses
+instead of the MIT license which has fewer protections.
+
+## Requirements
+
+<!-- Detailed descriptions of the features required for the project. Include user stories if you feel they'd be helpful, but focus on describing a specification for how the feature would work with an eye towards edge cases. -->
+
+The project requires a comparison of various licenses to identify the best
+possible license for different blocks in the monorepo. The project also requires
+an understanding of various licenses and the implications the choice of license
+would have on the project itself and on integrations using the Openverse data
+via the API.
+
+## Success
+
+<!-- How do we measure the success of the project? How do we know our ideas worked? -->
+
+The project can be considered both shipped and immediately successful after each
+individual component of the monorepo has completely moved to the new proposed
+licenses.
+
+## Participants and stakeholders
+
+<!-- Who is working on the project and who are the external stakeholders, if any? Consider the lead, implementers, designers, and other stakeholders who have a say in how the project goes. -->
+
+Essentially every contributor who has ever submitted a patch to Openverse will
+be a stakeholder in this project.
+
+The project would also affect existing integrations so we will need to notify
+the maintainers of these integrations about the change to the license.
+
+## Infrastructure
+
+<!-- What infrastructural considerations need to be made for this project? If there are none, say so explicitly rather than deleting the section. -->
+
+Change to the license would not involve any infrastructure changes.
+
+## Accessibility
+
+<!-- Are there specific accessibility concerns relevant to this project? Do you expect new UI elements that would need particular care to ensure they're implemented in an accessible way? Consider also low-spec device and slow internet accessibility, if relevant. -->
+
+Change to the license would not involve any accessibility changes.
+
+## Marketing
+
+<!-- Are there potential marketing opportunities that we'd need to coordinate with the community to accomplish? If there are none, say so explicitly rather than deleting the section. -->
+
+We should broadcast the change in license because of the following reasons.
+
+- Openverse would now use a GNU license which aligns with WordPress.
+- Openverse would be be covered by stronger copyleft protections.
+
+## Required implementation plans
+
+<!-- What are the required implementation plans? Consider if they should be split per level of the stack or per feature. -->
+
+One
+[implementation plan](/projects/proposals/relicensing/20241028-implementation_plan_relicensing.md)
+is required to arrive at the ideal license and document a process for
+conversion.
diff --git a/documentation/projects/proposals/relicensing/index.md b/documentation/projects/proposals/relicensing/index.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..b94294e4247
--- /dev/null
+++ b/documentation/projects/proposals/relicensing/index.md
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+# Relicensing
+
+```{toctree}
+:titlesonly:
+:glob:
+
+*
+```