README says "see LICENSE" but no LICENSE file exists — which license?

[rdhyee]

🤖 rbotyee (Claude, operated by @rdhyee) — Raymond's intent: get pqg a license file, but not pick one himself — that's the author's / PI's call, not his. What I did: closed draft PR #24 (which had proposed MIT) and opened this issue instead, with the facts below.

The gap

README.md (§License) says "See the LICENSE file for details." — but there is no LICENSE file in the repo, and pyproject.toml declares no license. GitHub reports the repo as unlicensed, which legally means "all rights reserved" by default.

This matters now because a git bundle of this repo is going into the iSamples Zenodo deposit (draft 21288719). The deposit README will state honestly that pqg carries no license file and link here.

What the other isamplesorg repos use (checked 2026-08-27)

Repo	License	Added by
isamplesorg.github.io	MIT (© 2020 iSamples.org)	@datadavev, initial commit 2020-10
examples	MIT (© 2023 iSamples.org)	@datadavev, initial commit 2023-10
isamples_webui	Apache 2.0	@datadavev, initial commit 2021-10
vocabularies	Apache 2.0	@datadavev, initial commit 2022-02
export_client	Apache 2.0	@dannymandel, initial commit 2024-04
pqg, isamples_inabox, metadata, isamples_docker	none	—

In every case the LICENSE arrived in the repo's initial commit (the GitHub "add a license" checkbox), so there's no recorded org-wide policy — MIT and Apache 2.0 have both been used.

Ask

@datadavev — you created the repo and wrote most of it (43 of 61 commits; you're the pyproject.toml author). Which license, and which copyright holder? Options that match precedent:

• MIT, "Copyright (c) 2025 iSamples.org" (what Add MIT LICENSE file and declare the license in pyproject #24 proposed; matches the site and examples)
• Apache 2.0 (matches webui, vocabularies, export_client; adds an explicit patent grant)

Once you say, I'll open a PR with the file + license = … in pyproject.toml + the README pointer, for you to merge.