At least some of these slightly unusual/surprising results are probably a result of methodology; e.g., many CPOL "projects" are just a code snippet, and most are just a file or two, so treating each of them the same as other projects probably doesn't reflect the real scope of license usage there.
As a general matter, I'd be hesitant to rely on any one source for popularity numbers without a fair amount of transparency around the data gathering methodology. On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <[email protected]> wrote: > Top 10 seems reasonable. If you collapse GPL into 1 category and LGPL into > one then that leaves: > > GPL 44% > Apache 13% > MIT 11% > LGPL 9% > BSD 7% > Artistic 6% > EPL 2% > MS-PL 1% > MPL 1% > CDDL <1% > > You could do top 9 with a 1% threshold but 10 is a rounder number and > there still are some significant projects/technologies using CDDL > (NetBeans, etc). To not include MPL in the list would also strike me as > odd given the significance of some of the projects under MPL and the > (IMHO) importance of that license to Open Source in general. > > As for C# these days I only loosely follow MonoMac and MonoTouch (mostly > from a lack of desire to learn ObjC) so I'm not the right one to ask. > > That MS-PL is used more often than MPL surprises me. I would not have > guessed that. > > On 11/13/12 11:46 AM, "John Cowan" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Tzeng, Nigel H. scripsit: >> >>> Unless you do open source using Perl or C#. Two widely used languages >>> with strong communities backing them. >> >>AFAIK most Perl work is done using a GPL/Artistic disjunction. >>I know there is a lot of C# in the world as a whole; how heavily is >>it used for open-source work, and how much of that is under the MS-PL? >>(These questions are not rhetorical.) >> >>> Since it is a distinction without a difference in your opinion then >>> may we assume that you should have absolutely no problems with adopting >>> such a metrics driven list? >> >>Personally I would have no problem with it, excluding of course any >>licenses that are not OSI certified. >> >>The problem of course is when to stop. I would be content to chop off >>all licenses with less than 5% market share at Blackduck, which would >>give a short and sweet list: GPL (43%), Apache (13%), MIT (11%), LGPL >>(9%), BSD (7%), Artistic (6%). I think all further concerns would be >>satisfied by a strong recommendation that if you are working within >>a particular community, to use the standard license of that community >>whatever it is. To meet the objection that some of these licenses are >>legacy, it would be interesting to see a crosstab of number of projects >>started in a given year vs. their licenses, assuming that relicensing >>events are rare enough to ignore. >> >>(Note: I got the ordering wrong in my last post through failing to add >>LGPL 2.1 and LGPL 3.0 numbers.) >> >>-- >>John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan >> Sound change operates regularly to produce irregularities; >> analogy operates irregularly to produce regularities. >> --E.H. Sturtevant, ca. 1945, probably at Yale >>_______________________________________________ >>License-discuss mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
