Thanks for pointing that out. First time doing "open-source" (well it seems it's not really open-source according to the modern definition). I'd like to use a more permissive license, but it's up to UCLA.
A middle ground might be found in licensing as open source the code that is needed to replicate any of your scientific findings. UCLA could keep proprietary the tooling required for commercial applications.
No worries, you're sharing the code, and that's the most important thing!