Subject: Re: the provide, license verbs - numbers
From: Alvin Oga <alvin@Mail.Linux-Consulting.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:51:28 -0700 (PDT)


hi ya john

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 jcowan@reutershealth.com wrote:

> 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

i'd be curious why there's a big differences in your average vs 
david wheeler's "averages"

	http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html

i'd assume you mean lgpl relative to *bsd ?? ( leaving out gpl )

i think the numbers would be more meaningful to include the averages
with GPL as part of the average figures
 
> 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)

		?? sendmail ??
		?? dns ??
 
c ya
alvin

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3