hi ya john On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Rick Moen scripsit: > > > "With rare exceptions, if you use a licence other than BSD (new or > > old), MIT/X, GPL, LGPL, MPL, CPL, AFL, OSL, you're probably dooming > > your project to gratuitous and pointless licence incompatibility with > > third-party codebases and ensuring that it will be ignored by the > > very developers you're trying to reach by adopting open source. > > I did a little research at Sourceforge and Freshmeat, looking at licenses > (excluding the non-FLOSS ones at Sourceforge). First of all, the GPL has > about 70% of the projects, so let's leave it out so that the contrasts > between other licenses become clearer. > > Averaging the two sites together, we get the following: > > 32% LGPL > 31% BSD (old or new) > 5% MIT/X > 5% MPL > 2% CPL or IBM > 1% OSL > 1% AFL i'd be curious why there's a big differences in your average vs david wheeler's "averages" http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html i'd assume you mean lgpl relative to *bsd ?? ( leaving out gpl ) i think the numbers would be more meaningful to include the averages with GPL as part of the average figures > Licenses you didn't mention: > > 8% Artistic or Perl > 5% Apache (any version) > 1% Qt > 1% zlib/libpng > 8% all others (none more than 1% individually) ?? sendmail ?? ?? dns ?? c ya alvin -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3