LICENSE / COPYRIGHT file content

[jsheunis]

Issue related to JOSS review: openjournals/joss-reviews#4248

Hi @sebastientourbier

Based on the JOSS review checklist and review criteria, the repo has to contain a LICENSE or COPYING file with content that is OSI approved. At first glance, your COPYRIGHT file doesn't seem to conform to these criteria, even though it is clear in its intent. I am not sure how closely the JOSS editors expect the criteria to be followed, so perhaps it's a good idea to check with them. Something else worth checking is whether putting restrictions on the use of the code, i.e.

THIS SOFTWARE IS FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR
ANY CLINICAL USE.

is actually aligned with OSI approved licenses (I am not sure about this.)

[jsheunis]

And I see individual modules mention:

This software is distributed under the open-source license Modified BSD.

although Modified BSD isn't mentioned in the COPYRIGHT file.

[jsheunis]

And the docs license has the heading BSD 3-clause license. So I think it would be useful to make the different entries referring to license/copyright as consistent as possible.