can you add a LICENSE.md file

[PFC-developer]

while it says that you are MIT in your readme.
most bots are thinking you are unlicensed. (and are potentially not including you in OSS searches).

TIA!

[PFC-developer]

fyi. this is what claude says ;-(

LICENSE file (GitHub's API reports license: null — I listed the repo root: .gitignore, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, README.md, brand-system/, consultant/, deck-design-pdf/, deck-design-ppt/, docs/… — no LICENSE). The practical read:

- Author intent is clearly MIT — a README declaration is a real, if imperfect, license grant. This softens my earlier "disqualified" to "MIT-declared, imperfectly executed."
- The imperfection is mechanical: the MIT license is a specific text requiring a copyright notice be carried with copies — with no file and no named copyright holder, there's literally no notice for us to reproduce, and every SPDX/compliance scanner (including whatever leak/license sweep the house runs before anything ships) will report NOASSERTION and flag it.
- So my stance: safe to use as a shape/reference source right now, and reasonable to restate its method (methods aren't copyrightable anyway — same posture as the staging research). For verbatim adoption of its files, the clean fix is a one-line upstream issue asking them to commit the LICENSE file — trivial for them, and it converts "declared" into "verifiable." Happy to file that from our account if you want; it's an outward-facing post so I've held off without your go.