Rename LICENCE files to LICENSE and standardize the spelling

examples/pala-ulm-ratbrain/README.md

@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ Source data deposited on [Zenodo (2023)](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7883226)
 
 ## License / Terms of Use
 
-CC BY 4.0 (see `LICENCE`). Attribution required — cite Heiles et al., *Nature Biomedical Engineering*, 2022 ([doi.org/10.1038/s41551-021-00824-8](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-021-00824-8)).
+CC BY 4.0 (see `LICENSE`). Attribution required — cite Heiles et al., *Nature Biomedical Engineering*, 2022 ([doi.org/10.1038/s41551-021-00824-8](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-021-00824-8)).
 
 ## Intended Usage
 

skills/openh-rf-submission-eval/SKILL.md

@@ -53,11 +53,11 @@ The user will hand you a path (local folder, mounted bucket, HF repo). Before ev
 - `reconstruct.py` — a single runnable script that reconstructs from the raw channel data and outputs a `.png`
 - `pipeline.yaml` — a saved `zea.Pipeline`, **one per track** in the file(s)
 - `README.md` at the dataset root — this **is** the data card (HF renders it as the dataset landing page). Must have YAML frontmatter with `license`, `pretty_name`, `task_categories`, `tags`.
-- `LICENCE` file declaring **CC BY 4.0** (either spelling — the submission guide uses `LICENCE`)
+- `LICENSE` file declaring **CC BY 4.0** (either spelling accepted; `LICENSE` is the canonical one the submission guide uses)
 - 1–2 reference B-mode images (the `.png`(s) `reconstruct.py` produces)
 - Possibly: consent/IRB documentation
 
-This is exactly the deliverable set the submission guide requires: zea `.hdf5` files, `reconstruct.py`, `pipeline.yaml` (one per track), `README.md`, and `LICENCE`. A separate `DATA_CARD.md` is **not** part of the expected layout — if one exists, treat it as a contributor-side artifact to be merged into `README.md` and flag the duplication.
+This is exactly the deliverable set the submission guide requires: zea `.hdf5` files, `reconstruct.py`, `pipeline.yaml` (one per track), `README.md`, and `LICENSE`. A separate `DATA_CARD.md` is **not** part of the expected layout — if one exists, treat it as a contributor-side artifact to be merged into `README.md` and flag the duplication.
 
 **Multiple sub-datasets.** Some submissions bundle several sub-datasets (distinct acquisition types or geometries) as separate folders under one submission root. The recommended layout gives each sub-dataset folder its own `pipeline.yaml` + `reconstruct.py`, rather than sharing one pair at the root — this keeps each `reconstruct.py` a thin script instead of growing acquisition-detection and branching logic to serve every sub-dataset from one script. A shared root-level pair is still an acceptable choice when the pipeline is genuinely identical across all sub-datasets. Seeing multiple `reconstruct.py`/`pipeline.yaml` pairs across sub-dataset folders is the *expected* layout for this case — do not flag it as duplication the way a stray `DATA_CARD.md` would be.
 

skills/openh-rf-submission-eval/references/dimensions/06-licensing.md

@@ -10,13 +10,13 @@ The submission is cleared for CC BY 4.0 release with no third-party IP encumbran
 
 ## Artifacts you need
 
-- A **`LICENCE`/`LICENSE` file (either spelling, any extension) at the submission root** — required. The submission guide uses the spelling `LICENCE`.
+- A **`LICENSE`/`LICENCE` file (either spelling, any extension) at the submission root** — required. The submission guide uses the spelling `LICENSE`.
 - The data card (License / Terms of Use section)
 - The proposal acceptance record, if available, where the contributor committed to CC BY 4.0
 
 ## Checks
 
-1. **LICENCE file present at submission root.** A `LICENCE`/`LICENSE` file (either spelling, extension optional) must exist at the top level of the submission and contain the verbatim CC BY 4.0 legal code (or an unambiguous SPDX header `SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0` plus a link to the canonical text). A statement of intent in the proposal alone is **not** sufficient — without an in-tree LICENSE the dataset travels without its license and downstream consumers cannot rely on it. Missing LICENSE file is `major` (contributor-fixable; not a blocker because intent has been declared, but cannot accept until the file is in place).
+1. **LICENSE file present at submission root.** A `LICENSE`/`LICENCE` file (either spelling, extension optional) must exist at the top level of the submission and contain the verbatim CC BY 4.0 legal code (or an unambiguous SPDX header `SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0` plus a link to the canonical text). A statement of intent in the proposal alone is **not** sufficient — without an in-tree LICENSE the dataset travels without its license and downstream consumers cannot rely on it. Missing LICENSE file is `major` (contributor-fixable; not a blocker because intent has been declared, but cannot accept until the file is in place).
 2. **Explicit CC BY 4.0 declaration.** The data card must say, plainly, that the dataset is released under CC BY 4.0. Vague phrasing ("open license", "permissive") is `major`. Anything other than CC BY 4.0 (e.g., CC BY-NC, CC BY-SA, custom license) is a `blocker` — the RFP requires CC BY 4.0 for compatibility with the aggregate release.
 3. **No "research-only" or "non-commercial" restrictions.** CC BY 4.0 explicitly permits commercial use. Any restriction language that contradicts this is a `blocker`.
 4. **No bundled third-party data with incompatible licenses.** Scan for: borrowed phantoms or simulation outputs from another dataset, third-party annotations, or any "courtesy of X" attributions that don't include licensing info. If found, `major` — needs clarification.