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 co...@ccil.org 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 License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss