Fix license inconsistency between README badge and LICENSE file

[Wilfred007]

What

README badge says MIT but LICENSE file says Apache 2.0. This is a legal inconsistency that must be resolved.

Why

License inconsistency creates legal ambiguity for contributors and users. Must be one or the other.

Scope

In scope: Choose one license, update both files, update all references
Out of scope: License negotiation

Acceptance Criteria

• README badge matches LICENSE file
• All references consistent
• LICENSE file is the source of truth

Technical Context

• README.md line 3 — MIT badge
• LICENSE — Apache 2.0

[ignaciojulio]

Hi team, I would like to take on this issue (Issue #562: Fix license inconsistency between README badge and LICENSE file).

Proposed Implementation Plan

1. Source of Truth Verification & Audit:

   • Confirm project governance and set the root LICENSE file (Apache 2.0) as the authoritative source of truth.
   • Audit README.md, repository metadata, manifest files, and source headers to locate any conflicting license identifiers (such as the legacy MIT badge on line 3).

2. Metadata & Documentation Alignment:

   • Update the badge and corresponding link in README.md to accurately reflect the Apache 2.0 license.
   • Ensure all documentation references and package configuration files consistently declare Apache 2.0 without ambiguity.

3. Validation & PR Alignment:

   • Verify that all CI license/lint checks pass cleanly.
   • Link and align with PR fix: align license badge with LICENSE file (Apache 2.0) (Closes #562) #592 to ensure smooth review and merge into main.

Deliverables & Acceptance Criteria

• README.md badge updated and matched with the LICENSE file (Apache 2.0).
• All repository documentation and manifest references aligned consistently.
• Legal ambiguity resolved with LICENSE maintained as the source of truth.

Could you please assign this issue to me? I am ready to submit the changes for review. Thanks!