[License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on "why standard licenses"?

[Philip Odence]

In case it helps, Black Duck publishes a top licenses list based on the
number of projects in our KnowledgeBase (out of a current total of about a
million) that utilize each respective license.
http://www.blackducksoftware.com/resources/data/top-20-open-source-licenses
 
The webpage only shows the top 20, but if OSI thought that 30, say, was a
good number, we could provide those.

By the way, we are working on improving the presentation of the list, but
I didn¹t want to wait for that before throwing the thought into the mix.



On 4/28/14, 4:57 PM, "Richard Fontana" <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:31:06 -0700
>Ben Tilly <btilly at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Suggested solution, can we use the word "common" instead of
>> "standard"?  And our definition of common should be something
>> relatively objective, like the top X licenses in use on github, minus
>> licenses (like the GPL v2) whose authors are pushing to replace with a
>> different license.
>
>You'd exclude the most commonly-used FLOSS license from "common"?
>
> - RF
>_______________________________________________
>License-discuss mailing list
>License-discuss at opensource.org
>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss