Unless you do open source using Perl or C#. Two widely used languages with strong communities backing them.
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? On 11/13/12 1:25 AM, "John Cowan" <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: >Luis Villa scripsit: > >> What objective, factual criteria would you use to supplement or >> replace the current categories? >> >> Ideally, suggestions for criteria would include either: >> >> 1) a reliable third-party data source (like the blackduck survey Nigel >> pointed to) > >Well, let's examine the current top 14 licenses in Blackduck's list, and >compare it with the OSI "popular, widely used, or with strong communities" >category. Let's further combine the two versions of GPL into one, and >likewise with LGPL, as well as the 2-clause and 3-clause BSD licenses. >If we then merge the ordered Blackduck top-14 list with the unordered >OSI category and put them in Blackduck order, we get: > >GPL, Apache, MIT, BSD, Artistic*, LGPL, EPL, CPOL**, MS-PL*, MPL, CDDL. > >[*] Not in the OSI category. > >[*] Not OSI certified at all; somewhat similar to the Apache license. > >So it's basically a distinction without a difference. > >-- >"The serene chaos that is Courage, and the phenomenon co...@ccil.org >of Unopened Consciousness have been known to the John Cowan >Great World eons longer than Extaboulism." >"Why is that?" the woman inquired. >"Because I just made that word up", the Master said wisely. > --Kehlog Albran, The Profit http://www.ccil.org/~cowan >_______________________________________________ >License-discuss mailing list >License-discuss@opensource.org >http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
