Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
Hello license-discuss, As a software developer, interested to raise awareness on open licensing, build a community of an Open Source project, and educate myself and all involved people to understand and choose their open licenses, I very much welcome this discussion. I admit I have been looking for slightly more guidance on OSI pages, over the last couple of years, than it is available currently. Please don't take that as criticism, or not otherwise intended than simply a need for pointers. If I may share a few thoughts from this user-side experience. I think that OSI pages could greatly help if they contain hints or assistance in particular for: On 12/10/12, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Regarding the classification of licenses, I think it is most important to > categorize licenses in the same business-related terminology that relates > to > business models. So you need to identify which licenses ignore or have > antiquated provisions regarding patents, and why that might matter; which > licenses require reciprocity; whether that reciprocity includes use by > third > parties over a network or whether it is a "strong" or "weak" reciprocity; I quote this for the reciprocity criterion first and foremost. I think it's essential, including but not limited to, for developers looking for a license, and for developers and community to understand open licenses, their effects, their goals. For an educational purpose. My own (poor) attempt at it has been the simplified and easy to understand approach (IMHO): permissive licenses (require no reciprocity; BSD, MIT, Apache) -> weak copyleft (MPL; with LGPL more towards the next 'step') -> strong copyleft (GPL) -> strong copyleft extended (AGPL). Additionally, I think OSL is worth a place; again for informative or educational purpose IMHO. > which licenses are definitely incompatible with each other for derivative > work purposes; This is another important question, one needs to know or inform themselves easily on definite incompatibilities. As expected, personally I have addressed it by researching the licenses, license stewards statements, and projects statements where needed. IMHO a matrix or listings of at least some license incompatibilities would be very useful. Other criteria discussed in this thread could also be useful, for sure. However, at least these above (including patents position, with a simple explanation if it's possible, for the many unaware of potential issues), are in my experience very much needed. They shape the landscape of Open Source licenses and categorization by them would greatly help to understand at least the basics of this landscape. ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
On 10/12/12 17:23, Luis Villa wrote: How to define "useful" objectively? Size is the obvious, plausibly-obtainable proxy here for "useful"- "projects over X LOC" or something like that. I suppose if you had a custom crawler that had knowledge of git/svn/cvs/etc., you could do "projects over 5 committers" or "projects with over 100 commits" or something along those lines. Richard suggests community size, which would be great but is probably not computable, no matter how many people/how much money you throw at it. Perhaps we could have multiple criteria - either size, or being used in > N other projects. If there were some way of detecting that. Some modern SCMs now allow you to explicitly pull in other repos; perhaps that could be detected. This is important; however some licenses such as the HPND have no identified author, but yet are deprecated. Deprecated by *who*? :) (Note that we don't even have a "deprecated" category right now; we've only gotten as far as "redundant with more popular licenses.") Well, http://opensource.org/licenses/HPND says: "This License has been voluntarily deprecated by its author." :-P * has/doesn't have an explicit patent grant - I am of the view that even if the OSI finds it impossible politically to recommend specific licenses, it should try and get to a place where it can recommend license features - with an explicit patent grant being in pole position. Any others? Nothing so concrete. One would want the license to have been drafted with international concerns in mind, especially if it did not have choice-of-law. But that's much harder to spot. As Richard points out, it is very hard to imagine how to make this objective, but I'd encourage folks to think creatively about it. Richard's point is a fair one :-) I like the intuition here, but I'd like to push us to think about more objective criteria: what does it mean to "play nicely"? Presumably "compatible", but who determines compatibility? What does it mean? Can that be determined objectively? A good question. What is compatibility? It is a non-transitive relation, such that X is compatible with Y if code from license X can be used in a project with license Y. (If we want to pick a better term than "compatible", I wouldn't object.) Who determines compatibility? Aside from the well-known disagreement about Apache 2 and GPL 2, I'm not sure (perhaps I'm naive!) that there is much disagreement about compatibility as defined above, for popular X and Y. Gerv ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 09/12/12 18:46, Luis Villa wrote: >> >> So let me restate the question to broaden it a bit. If you had a >> *blue-sky dream* what subjective information would you look at? By the way, I think this was probably obvious from the rest of the email, but I meant *objective* here. >> For example, if you had the resources to scan huge numbers of code >> repositories, what numbers would you look for? >> >> * ranking by LoC under each license >> * ranking by "projects" under each license >> * ... ? > > > If we are blue-sky dreaming, then I would like to rank by "_useful_, unique > lines of code under each license". "Useful" in the sense that some > half-finished barely-compiling "my first Windows CD player" on Sourceforge > counts for nothing, whereas jQuery counts for a lot. "Unique", in the sense > that I shouldn't be able to game the stats by going to github and forking > every project with my preferred license. How to define "useful" objectively? Size is the obvious, plausibly-obtainable proxy here for "useful"- "projects over X LOC" or something like that. I suppose if you had a custom crawler that had knowledge of git/svn/cvs/etc., you could do "projects over 5 committers" or "projects with over 100 commits" or something along those lines. Richard suggests community size, which would be great but is probably not computable, no matter how many people/how much money you throw at it. It may be that in practice, objective information has to be stored in the same revision control system the relevant license information is stored in. Otherwise you're not talking about something that can be crawled/computed- you're talking about something that requires human intervention, which even if it is objective still limits your sample size. >> Similarly, if you could declare objective criteria for textual license >> analysis and had the time/resources to read all of them, what would >> those criteria be? e.g., >> >> * has/has not been retired by the author > > This is important; however some licenses such as the HPND have no identified > author, but yet are deprecated. Deprecated by *who*? :) (Note that we don't even have a "deprecated" category right now; we've only gotten as far as "redundant with more popular licenses.") >> * has/has not been obsoleted by a new license published by the same author > > - one can imagine a license which has been obsoleted by its author but is > still in wide use, and even specifically chosen over newer versions (e.g. > GPL 2) > >> * has/doesn't have an explicit patent grant > > - I am of the view that even if the OSI finds it impossible politically to > recommend specific licenses, it should try and get to a place where it can > recommend license features - with an explicit patent grant being in pole > position. Any others? >> * ... ? > > I think there is also a place for "lawyers generally think it's vague and > has sub-optimal word choice", which might apply to e.g. Artistic v1. As Richard points out, it is very hard to imagine how to make this objective, but I'd encourage folks to think creatively about it. >> * Plays well with other popular licenses. We now have a "can use in" >> progression which goes: > > MIT/BSD -> Apache 2 -> MPL 2 -> LGPL 3 -> GPL 3 (-> AGPL 3) > > (Those GPL numbers could be 2 rather than 3 if there was a warning about the > Apache2/GPL2 incompatibility which the FSF asserts.) > > If your code doesn't slot somewhere into that ecosystem, you are (IMO) > significantly reducing the likelihood of it gaining widespread use, all > other things being equal. I like the intuition here, but I'd like to push us to think about more objective criteria: what does it mean to "play nicely"? Presumably "compatible", but who determines compatibility? What does it mean? Can that be determined objectively? Plays nicely with what other popular licenses? EPL is popular, for example. Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:57:10AM +, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 09/12/12 18:46, Luis Villa wrote: > >So let me restate the question to broaden it a bit. If you had a > >*blue-sky dream* what subjective information would you look at? > > > >For example, if you had the resources to scan huge numbers of code > >repositories, what numbers would you look for? > > > >* ranking by LoC under each license > >* ranking by "projects" under each license > >* ... ? > > If we are blue-sky dreaming, then I would like to rank by "_useful_, > unique lines of code under each license". "Useful" in the sense that > some half-finished barely-compiling "my first Windows CD player" on > Sourceforge counts for nothing, whereas jQuery counts for a lot. > "Unique", in the sense that I shouldn't be able to game the stats by > going to github and forking every project with my preferred license. I can also imagine other metrics of license popularity. Download statistics are problematic but it is the usual metric for distro popularity. One might be able to measure the size of contributor and user communities (numbers of committers, numbers of unique patch authors for a given release, subscriptions to mailing lists...?). [...] > I think there is also a place for "lawyers generally think it's > vague and has sub-optimal word choice", which might apply to e.g. > Artistic v1. I think that's highly problematic. I really don't think one can successfully attempt to measure consensus among lawyers regarding specific open source licenses. You could probably find enough lawyers to criticize features of any number of OSI-approved licenses, and there is also the problem (to which the GPL family is especially vulnerable for historical reasons) of 'popular' licenses being scrutinized for flaws more severely than less widely-used licenses. As for 'suboptimal word choice' that seems unavoidably subjective, and probably can be legitimately applied to every single OSI-approved license, including all of the ones assumed to be the most popular, and probably every software license that's ever been drafted. - RF ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
On 09/12/12 18:46, Luis Villa wrote: So let me restate the question to broaden it a bit. If you had a *blue-sky dream* what subjective information would you look at? For example, if you had the resources to scan huge numbers of code repositories, what numbers would you look for? * ranking by LoC under each license * ranking by "projects" under each license * ... ? If we are blue-sky dreaming, then I would like to rank by "_useful_, unique lines of code under each license". "Useful" in the sense that some half-finished barely-compiling "my first Windows CD player" on Sourceforge counts for nothing, whereas jQuery counts for a lot. "Unique", in the sense that I shouldn't be able to game the stats by going to github and forking every project with my preferred license. Similarly, if you could declare objective criteria for textual license analysis and had the time/resources to read all of them, what would those criteria be? e.g., * has/has not been retired by the author This is important; however some licenses such as the HPND have no identified author, but yet are deprecated. * has/has not been obsoleted by a new license published by the same author - one can imagine a license which has been obsoleted by its author but is still in wide use, and even specifically chosen over newer versions (e.g. GPL 2) * has/doesn't have an explicit patent grant - I am of the view that even if the OSI finds it impossible politically to recommend specific licenses, it should try and get to a place where it can recommend license features - with an explicit patent grant being in pole position. * ... ? I think there is also a place for "lawyers generally think it's vague and has sub-optimal word choice", which might apply to e.g. Artistic v1. > * Plays well with other popular licenses. We now have a "can use in" progression which goes: MIT/BSD -> Apache 2 -> MPL 2 -> LGPL 3 -> GPL 3 (-> AGPL 3) (Those GPL numbers could be 2 rather than 3 if there was a warning about the Apache2/GPL2 incompatibility which the FSF asserts.) If your code doesn't slot somewhere into that ecosystem, you are (IMO) significantly reducing the likelihood of it gaining widespread use, all other things being equal. Gerv ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
Hi Luis, There are many useful ways to cut the data. Even raw statistics on number of lines of code under each license; number of independent foundations/projects that have adopted each license; types of software under each license; etc. can be interesting. I'd like to know which licenses are used by government agencies; for-profit software companies; non-profits. Most useful would be a way of listing "large" or "important" projects and the licenses they use, as long as the list of such projects is broad and comprehensive. I have no idea how Black Duck or others calculate their statistics nor what is included in their samples, so the lack of methodological openness is more of a problem than the availability of "statistics". I hope that OSI can address these questions as scientists would, rather than as religious zealots for one sect or another. Regarding the classification of licenses, I think it is most important to categorize licenses in the same business-related terminology that relates to business models. So you need to identify which licenses ignore or have antiquated provisions regarding patents, and why that might matter; which licenses require reciprocity; whether that reciprocity includes use by third parties over a network or whether it is a "strong" or "weak" reciprocity; which licensees contain defensive suspension provisions (patent only or copyright also) that require due diligence before reliance on that software; which licenses are definitely incompatible with each other for derivative work purposes; which licenses are approved for use by the US or other governments; which contain attribution requirements beyond a subset of basic requirements; which contain jurisdiction or governing law provisions; etc. Of course, OSI should identify licenses that have been superseded or withdrawn by the author. Good luck doing this with scientific precision. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 -Original Message- From: Luis Villa [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 10:47 AM To: Karl Fogel; License Discuss Subject: Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation I'm a little surprised at how quiet this thread has been, especially since I know some members of this list have been calling for objective criteria for a while. So let me restate the question to broaden it a bit. If you had a *blue-sky dream* what subjective information would you look at? For example, if you had the resources to scan huge numbers of code repositories, what numbers would you look for? * ranking by LoC under each license * ranking by "projects" under each license * ... ? Similarly, if you could declare objective criteria for textual license analysis and had the time/resources to read all of them, what would those criteria be? e.g., * has/has not been retired by the author * has/has not been obsoleted by a new license published by the same author * has/doesn't have an explicit patent grant * ... ? These examples assume quantitative measures of adoption, the text, and the explicit actions of the author are the only things about a license that can actually be measured, but I am probably thinking small- other examples welcome. [As a reminder, this is not a purely theoretical exercise- I agree with many on this list that a license process based on more objective criteria would be a good thing, and this thread is an effort to explore that issue and start thinking about what such a list might look like.] Luis On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Karl Fogel wrote: > Matthew Flaschen writes: >>On 12/05/2012 10:23 AM, Karl Fogel wrote: >>> Luis Villa writes: >>>> Anyone else have other suggestions for objective criteria we could >>>> use? I know some folks here have been thinking about this issue for >>>> some time. >>> >>> Number of "forks" of software under a given license on GitHub, >>> adjusted for license popularity across GitHub? (And the equivalent >>> calculation for other sites, where possible.) >> >>That could be misleading, depending on what we want to measure. There >>are a lot of forks doing real work (either true forks, or those that >>do ongoing pull requests to keep synced). >> >>However, there are also people that fork and make one or two changes, >>or none at all. There's nothing wrong with that, it just might not be >>a meaningful metric for this purpose. > > Of course. I meant that as a direction to look in, not as a literal > suggestion of methodology. By number of forks at GitHub, I meant > "look at the forks, using some kind of intelligent criteria, > statistical methods, etc". > &
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
I'm a little surprised at how quiet this thread has been, especially since I know some members of this list have been calling for objective criteria for a while. So let me restate the question to broaden it a bit. If you had a *blue-sky dream* what subjective information would you look at? For example, if you had the resources to scan huge numbers of code repositories, what numbers would you look for? * ranking by LoC under each license * ranking by "projects" under each license * ... ? Similarly, if you could declare objective criteria for textual license analysis and had the time/resources to read all of them, what would those criteria be? e.g., * has/has not been retired by the author * has/has not been obsoleted by a new license published by the same author * has/doesn't have an explicit patent grant * ... ? These examples assume quantitative measures of adoption, the text, and the explicit actions of the author are the only things about a license that can actually be measured, but I am probably thinking small- other examples welcome. [As a reminder, this is not a purely theoretical exercise- I agree with many on this list that a license process based on more objective criteria would be a good thing, and this thread is an effort to explore that issue and start thinking about what such a list might look like.] Luis On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Karl Fogel wrote: > Matthew Flaschen writes: >>On 12/05/2012 10:23 AM, Karl Fogel wrote: >>> Luis Villa writes: Anyone else have other suggestions for objective criteria we could use? I know some folks here have been thinking about this issue for some time. >>> >>> Number of "forks" of software under a given license on GitHub, adjusted >>> for license popularity across GitHub? (And the equivalent calculation >>> for other sites, where possible.) >> >>That could be misleading, depending on what we want to measure. There >>are a lot of forks doing real work (either true forks, or those that do >>ongoing pull requests to keep synced). >> >>However, there are also people that fork and make one or two changes, or >>none at all. There's nothing wrong with that, it just might not be a >>meaningful metric for this purpose. > > Of course. I meant that as a direction to look in, not as a literal > suggestion of methodology. By number of forks at GitHub, I meant "look > at the forks, using some kind of intelligent criteria, statistical > methods, etc". > > This is non-trivial work, of course. Which is why it is so hard to get > good stats on license popularity and why the notion is rife with > fundamental definitional questions. > ___ > 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
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
Matthew Flaschen writes: >On 12/05/2012 10:23 AM, Karl Fogel wrote: >> Luis Villa writes: >>> Anyone else have other suggestions for objective criteria we could >>> use? I know some folks here have been thinking about this issue for >>> some time. >> >> Number of "forks" of software under a given license on GitHub, adjusted >> for license popularity across GitHub? (And the equivalent calculation >> for other sites, where possible.) > >That could be misleading, depending on what we want to measure. There >are a lot of forks doing real work (either true forks, or those that do >ongoing pull requests to keep synced). > >However, there are also people that fork and make one or two changes, or >none at all. There's nothing wrong with that, it just might not be a >meaningful metric for this purpose. Of course. I meant that as a direction to look in, not as a literal suggestion of methodology. By number of forks at GitHub, I meant "look at the forks, using some kind of intelligent criteria, statistical methods, etc". This is non-trivial work, of course. Which is why it is so hard to get good stats on license popularity and why the notion is rife with fundamental definitional questions. ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
On 12/05/2012 10:23 AM, Karl Fogel wrote: > Luis Villa writes: >> Anyone else have other suggestions for objective criteria we could >> use? I know some folks here have been thinking about this issue for >> some time. > > Number of "forks" of software under a given license on GitHub, adjusted > for license popularity across GitHub? (And the equivalent calculation > for other sites, where possible.) That could be misleading, depending on what we want to measure. There are a lot of forks doing real work (either true forks, or those that do ongoing pull requests to keep synced). However, there are also people that fork and make one or two changes, or none at all. There's nothing wrong with that, it just might not be a meaningful metric for this purpose. Matt Flaschen ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
Luis Villa writes: >Anyone else have other suggestions for objective criteria we could >use? I know some folks here have been thinking about this issue for >some time. Number of "forks" of software under a given license on GitHub, adjusted for license popularity across GitHub? (And the equivalent calculation for other sites, where possible.) ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
Sorry about the long lag in response here; I thought some followup had gone to this list but apparently not. On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > I am unaware of another comprehensive dataset but I also haven't seriously > gone looking for one either. The raw data is available and there is an > API to access it. Sure! Obviously this is better than nothing; I'm just hoping others can point to other resources we could blend/combine with this one. (And of course we can ask Ohloh about providing more context so that we can more reliably use the existing numbers.) > Ideally the OSI would collect such metrics but I understand the financial > limitations that the OSI is operating under. > > On the other hand things like Ohloh and the OSRC metrics really should > have been OSI initiatives and perhaps with the affiliates and individual > memberships you can now afford to do things like this. It is certainly the kind of thing that I'd love to see us push for with more resources. And it isn't just a resource thing; I think in general OSI is ready to be more proactive about this kind of thing than we have been in years past - we see more things, like this one, as potential topics for action. I definitely hope we're not just limited to advocacy. Anyone else have other suggestions for objective criteria we could use? I know some folks here have been thinking about this issue for some time. Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
I am unaware of another comprehensive dataset but I also haven't seriously gone looking for one either. The raw data is available and there is an API to access it. Ideally the OSI would collect such metrics but I understand the financial limitations that the OSI is operating under. On the other hand things like Ohloh and the OSRC metrics really should have been OSI initiatives and perhaps with the affiliates and individual memberships you can now afford to do things like this. This is off-topic but I would be more inclined to join as an individual member if there was more clarity into what concrete benefits the OSI will provide (beyond advocacy) and what membership governance really means. Do members get to vote for board members? I can easily give the OSI $40 a year but I don't care to pay for just advocacy. Although I do wonder why membership costs $5 more to join the OSI than the ACLU or NRA with actual DC lobbies and lawyers...the AARP is a bargain at $16. You guys should seriously consider an associate/student membership at a $15-$20 rate. On 11/13/12 12:58 PM, "Luis Villa" wrote: >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. >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" 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 [email protected]://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 ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected]
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
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. 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" 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 [email protected]://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
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
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" 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 [email protected]://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
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
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 [email protected]://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
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
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" 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 [email protected] >of Unopened Consciousness have been known to theJohn 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 >[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
Re: [License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation
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 [email protected] of Unopened Consciousness have been known to theJohn 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 [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
