Firstly, have you made a conscious decision about the license for BF? At the moment it is GPL, whereas VE is MIT, and ULS is dual-licensed. Is there a WMF preference or is just your choice?
We should also move the author list into a AUTHORS.txt file, and the license into LICENSE.txt to reduce duplication. Would you be happy with the VE styles [php/js/css]?
Version: unspecified
Severity: normal
VE is a very special case that I would absolutely not attribute as an organization- or movement-wide preference (same with ULS), and while it was my decision to choose GPL, I chose v2 because that's the WMF's preference usually.
The legal team will tell you "Apache", but as you probably know, that's not my preference, especially when this cannot be reasonably treated as a library. I'm happier knowing that not only am *I* making this free software, everyone else down the line will have to, as well.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html explains that each file should have the header, but not the full license. COPYING has the full license text already. AUTHORS would be a good idea too, though I don't generally like adding .txt to the end of it.
What are the "VE styles"?
Clarified on "VE styles" in IRC - I'll go with "yes" but reserve the right to revisit it if something seems silly. :)
Change 92525 had a related patch set uploaded by Esanders:
Standardise and minimise licence headers