Closed ChristophB closed 2 months ago
Agree that the LICENSE should be switched to something in common use because with the current one I have no idea which it actually is as there is no mention of the license name, it seems like a self-build license which is not good for adoption, see https://ben.balter.com/2016/08/01/why-you-shouldnt-write-your-own-open-source-license/.
P.S.: I just noticed this as I wanted to fill out the "license" field of CITATION.cff, According to https://citation-file-format.github.io/cff-initializer-javascript/#/license, one needs to write down the SPDX license identifier but I don't think the current license has one.
Is the currently used license appropriate? Maybe switch to something like CC BY.
The license is also included in the OWL file and should be updated there too.