docs: landing page says "MIT licensed" but repo is Apache 2.0

[bpamiri]

The landing site contradicts the actual repo license.

Mismatch:

• web/sites/landing/src/pages/index.astro:32 — "Code, issues, discussions, and contribution guidelines. MIT licensed."
• Root LICENSE — Apache License 2.0
• Repo metadata (gh repo view) — apache-2.0

Why it matters: compliance auditors and downstream users hit a "which license actually governs this?" question. Marketing/legal divergence is the kind of finding raised in procurement reviews.

Fix:

• Change MIT licensed → Apache 2.0 licensed in web/sites/landing/src/pages/index.astro:32
• Grep rest of web/sites/landing/ and web/sites/blog/ for other "MIT" references
• Rebuild + redeploy landing site

Trivial fix, but should ship before any other licensing cleanup so the public face matches reality.

[wheels-bot]

Wheels Bot — Triage

Classified as docs-request.

Docs scope

A single line in web/sites/landing/src/pages/index.astro (line 187) reads "MIT licensed" but the repo license is Apache 2.0. The fix is to change that string to "Apache 2.0 licensed" and sweep the rest of web/sites/landing/ and web/sites/blog/ for any other stale "MIT" license references. No new page or section is needed — this is a targeted content correction on the landing page.

Confidence: high

The incorrect text is confirmed at exactly the path named in the issue, the correct replacement is unambiguous (Apache 2.0), and the full scope is a grep-and-replace with no design decisions involved.

[wheels-bot]

Wheels Bot — Docs proposed

Draft PR: #2576

Pages updated:

• web/sites/landing/src/pages/index.astro — corrected "MIT licensed" → "Apache 2.0 licensed" on line 187
• CHANGELOG.md — one-line [Unreleased] entry

Screenshots needed: none

A human review is required before merge. Reviewer A and Reviewer B will weigh in shortly.