bug: License reported in readme.md is wrong

[t413]

Amazing project. Seriously.

And great choice for GPLv3!

One issue: it's misreported as MIT license in the readme.md file.

Also a few other issues to note that don't seem worth a separate issue:

• there's way too many files in the root directory! effectively hides the readme.md. Find a way to limit to ~a dozen max, as is customary on GitHub.
• there's no link to this project on the running site. No about page, nothing. Recommend adding an About page that links to this repository.

[Kpa-clawbot]

Severity: P3 — docs correctness (license mis-statement)

Claim: confirmed (license bullet) / partial (other two bullets).

Code today:

• README.md:272 — text reads MIT under ## License
• LICENSE:1 — GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (header confirms GPLv3)

So the repo is GPLv3; only the README label is wrong. This is the kind of mismatch that creates real legal ambiguity for downstream forks — fix is one word.

Findings:

• (djb): a license string that contradicts the LICENSE file is a correctness bug, not a style nit; downstream packagers (distros, Software Heritage, OSS scanners) read the README first. Ship the fix in isolation.
• (tufte): root-dir clutter complaint and "no About page" are real, but they're separate axes — bundling them buries the actionable one-line fix.

Fix path: README.md:272 — replace MIT with GPL-3.0-or-later (matches SPDX id used by LICENSE). Effort: S.

Dup check: searched "license MIT GPL readme" in issues/PRs — none open. Root-dir cleanup is already tracked in #1385 (PR-A/B archive sweep). "About page / link to repo from running site" is a net-new UX request — should be split into its own issue if pursued (not auto-fix material; needs design call on where the link lives).

Triage verdict: ready-to-fix (license-label fix only; defer the other two bullets — #1385 covers cleanup, About page needs a separate issue).