[License-discuss] objective criteria for license evaluation

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

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" <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> 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   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
>_______________________________________________
>License-discuss mailing list
>License-discuss at opensource.org
>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss