chore: add MIT license

[vincentkoc]

What Problem This Solves

This public repository does not declare a root license, leaving reuse terms unclear.

Why This Change Was Made

Adds the standard MIT License at the repository root with copyright assigned to the OpenClaw Foundation. No manifests, documentation, or third-party notices are changed.

User Impact

Users and contributors have explicit MIT terms for using and redistributing this repository.

Evidence

• LICENSE is the only changed file.
• git diff --check passes.
• Privacy scan of the changed content is clean.

[clawsweeper]

🦞👀
ClawSweeper picked this up.

Pull request received. I will update this pull request when review starts.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed August 20, 2026, 4:03 AM ET / 08:03 UTC.

ClawSweeper review

What this changes

The PR adds a 21-line root MIT license naming the OpenClaw Foundation as copyright holder.

Merge readiness

⚠️ Ready for maintainer review - 2 items remain

Keep this member-authored draft open: current main has no root license, but the project must authorize the MIT choice and named copyright holder before setting repository-wide legal terms.

Priority: P2
Reviewed head: fa21a10da8f3a26c3fe6b77d486d583674c923fa
Owner decision: Required. See Decision needed.

Review scores

Measure	Result	What it means
Overall readiness	🦐 gold shrimp (3/6)	The patch is mechanically clear, but its project-wide legal terms need authorized confirmation.
Proof confidence	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Not applicable: This member-authored, text-only legal notice has no runtime behavior requiring real-behavior proof.
Patch quality	🦐 gold shrimp (3/6)	No actionable review findings were identified.

Verification

Check	Result	Evidence
Real behavior	Not applicable	Not applicable: This member-authored, text-only legal notice has no runtime behavior requiring real-behavior proof.
Evidence reviewed	4 items	Current main has no root license: The default-branch tree lists community documents and policy files but no LICENSE, COPYING, or NOTICE file, so the central problem remains on current main. Narrow legal-text diff: The PR adds only LICENSE; line 3 assigns copyright to the OpenClaw Foundation. Community-document history: Default-branch history identifies recent contributors to the central community-guide surface, but does not establish approval for a project-wide license or copyright holder.
Findings	None	None.
Security	None	None.

How this fits together

The root license governs reuse of the community repository’s guidance and supporting materials. It informs contributors and downstream users what redistribution terms apply.

flowchart LR
  A[Community guidance] --> B[Root license]
  B --> C[Reuse terms]
  C --> D[Contributors]
  C --> E[Downstream users]

Loading

Decision needed

Question	Recommendation
Should this community repository adopt the MIT License with the OpenClaw Foundation named as copyright holder?	Approve the proposed notice: Confirm MIT and the OpenClaw Foundation attribution, then merge the one-file change.

Why: This sets legal reuse terms for all existing repository material and requires authorized project intent beyond a mechanically correct text file.

Before merge

• Resolve merge risk (P1) - The repository history inspected does not establish that MIT or the OpenClaw Foundation copyright designation is the authorized project-wide legal policy.

Agent review details

Security

None.

Review metrics

Metric	Value	Why it matters
License surface	1 file added, 21 lines	This small diff establishes repository-wide reuse terms.

Merge-risk options

Maintainer options:

1. Confirm legal terms before merge (recommended)
   Obtain explicit authorization for the MIT notice and copyright holder because the file governs reuse of all repository materials.
2. Pause for governance direction
   Keep the draft open until the project specifies its approved licensing model.

Technical review

Best possible solution:

Obtain explicit project authorization for the license and copyright holder, then merge this narrow root-file change if those terms are approved.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Not applicable: this is a legal-governance change, not a runtime behavior report.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear: the wording is standard MIT text, but the project must confirm both the license selection and copyright-holder attribution.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 70c85ceaac9f.

Labels

Label changes:

• add P2: The change has project-wide legal impact but no demonstrated urgent runtime effect.
• add merge-risk: 🚨 other: Merging the root license would establish legal reuse terms without source evidence that the proposed terms are authorized.
• add rating: 🦐 gold shrimp: Overall readiness is 🦐 gold shrimp; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🦐 gold shrimp.
• add status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: This member-authored, text-only legal notice has no runtime behavior requiring real-behavior proof.

Label justifications:

• P2: The change has project-wide legal impact but no demonstrated urgent runtime effect.
• merge-risk: 🚨 other: Merging the root license would establish legal reuse terms without source evidence that the proposed terms are authorized.
• rating: 🦐 gold shrimp: Overall readiness is 🦐 gold shrimp; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🦐 gold shrimp.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: This member-authored, text-only legal notice has no runtime behavior requiring real-behavior proof.

Evidence

What I checked:

• Current main has no root license: The default-branch tree lists community documents and policy files but no LICENSE, COPYING, or NOTICE file, so the central problem remains on current main. (70c85ceaac9f)
• Narrow legal-text diff: The PR adds only LICENSE; line 3 assigns copyright to the OpenClaw Foundation. (LICENSE:3, fa21a10da8f3)
• Community-document history: Default-branch history identifies recent contributors to the central community-guide surface, but does not establish approval for a project-wide license or copyright holder. (README.md:1, 1192fb9ed10e)
• Repository policy: The full root policy was read; its applicable diagram requirement is satisfied by the Mermaid architecture diagram and no nested policy applies to LICENSE. (AGENTS.md:1, 70c85ceaac9f)

Likely related people:

• Peter Steinberger: Authored the current default-branch tip and several recent community-guide changes. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 70c85ceaac9f, 7165793a41e1; files: README.md, .github/workflows/clawsweeper-dispatch.yml)
• Hannes Rudolph: Authored the latest substantive README simplification on current main. (role: recent documentation contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 1192fb9ed10e; files: README.md, discord.md)

Rank-up moves

Optional improvements that raise the rating; they are not merge blockers.

• Obtain explicit approval for the license choice and copyright-holder wording.

Rating scale

Score	Internal tier	Crab rank	Meaning
6/6	S	🦀 challenger crab	Exceptional readiness
5/6	A	🦞 diamond lobster	Very strong readiness
4/6	B	🐚 platinum hermit	Good normal PR; ordinary maintainer review
3/6	C	🦐 gold shrimp	Useful, but confidence is limited
2/6	D	🦪 silver shellfish	Proof or implementation needs work
1/6	F	🧂 unranked krab	Not merge-ready
N/A	NA	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Rating does not apply

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality.
Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

Workflow

• ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
• Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
• A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
• Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
• Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
• Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
• Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.

[vincentkoc]

Owner authorization: this PR implements the approved decision to license this public repository under MIT with Copyright (c) 2026 OpenClaw Foundation. The standard MIT text and copyright-holder wording are intentional. No further legal-text changes are requested.