[License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation

John Cowan cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Tue Nov 13 06:25:41 UTC 2012

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   cowan at ccil.org
of Unopened Consciousness have been known to the        John 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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list