In case it helps, Black Duck publishes a top licenses list based on the number of projects in our KnowledgeBase (out of a current total of about a million) that utilize each respective license. http://www.blackducksoftware.com/resources/data/top-20-open-source-licenses The webpage only shows the top 20, but if OSI thought that 30, say, was a good number, we could provide those.
By the way, we are working on improving the presentation of the list, but I didn¹t want to wait for that before throwing the thought into the mix. On 4/28/14, 4:57 PM, "Richard Fontana" <font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote: >On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:31:06 -0700 >Ben Tilly <bti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Suggested solution, can we use the word "common" instead of >> "standard"? And our definition of common should be something >> relatively objective, like the top X licenses in use on github, minus >> licenses (like the GPL v2) whose authors are pushing to replace with a >> different license. > >You'd exclude the most commonly-used FLOSS license from "common"? > > - RF >_______________________________________________ >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
