License?

[cthoyt]

It would be great if you added an explicit license for the content of this repo, or minimally, a statement inside the content of the RDF

bibo/rdf/bibo.ttl

Lines 11 to 22 in bcdd0e0

	bibo:
	a owl:Ontology ;
	owl:versionInfo "http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/1.3/" ;
	dc:title "The Bibliographic Ontology" ;
	dc:description """The Bibliographic Ontology describes
	bibliographic things on the semantic Web in RDF. This ontology can be
	used as a citation ontology, as a document classification ontology, or
	simply as a way to describe any kind of document in RDF. It has been
	inspired by many existing document description metadata formats, and
	can be used as a common ground for converting other bibliographic data
	sources."""@en ;
	dc:creator bibo:bdarcus, bibo:fgiasson .

[nishad]

Hi @cthoyt

Thanks for raising this — it's a real gap, and I agree the repository
should carry an explicit license declaration rather than relying on
inheritance from the DCMI umbrella IP notice.

I've opened dcmi/usage#135 to bring this to the DCMI Usage Board, with
some additional historical context on BIBO's licensing trajectory
and options for the Board to consider.

Linking here for visibility — further discussion is probably best
consolidated on the Usage Board issue.

— Nishad (DCMI Web Manager)