Subject: Re: the provide, license verbs
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:26:49 -0400

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

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)

John Cowan
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main.  If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a
manor of thy friends or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for
whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.  --John Donne
license-discuss archive is at