[JOSS REVIEW] Two LICENSE files

[iimog]

There are currently two LICENSE files in the repository. None of them is recognized by GitHub and listed as Unknown (see screenshot).

It appears like the old LICENSE file is now superseded by the LICENSE.md file, containing an AGPL license. This file is rendered strangely, as it is not actually a markdown file. So I suggest renaming LICENSE.md to just LICENSE, overwriting the old file. Further, it would be nice if the content of that file could be changed in a way, that makes GitHub recognize it as an AGPL license. For this, the note about speedyseq might need to be moved, e.g. to the README.

Another small note: the AGPL states, that

[...] each file should have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

I'm not sure, whether this is strictly necessary or just a recommendation, but your source files do not currently have this notice.

[iimog]

Related to openjournals/joss-reviews#6038

[adrientaudiere]

Thanks for pointing that out. I now follow the recommendation from r-pkgs.org using only a LICENSE.md file to complement the License field in file DESCRIPTION. I fixed the spelling of the License and therefore, GitHub must be able to print the good license name.

Concerning your small note about adding copyright in each file, those instructions can be interpreted as best practices, but not necessarily requirements for GPL compliance (source) and I therefore follow again the recommendation from r-pkgs.org.

[adrientaudiere]

Hi @iimog, the LICENCE.md file is the only file about license now. It resolves the automatic github license information you pointed out in your screenshot.

[iimog]

Perfect