[License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses

Philippe Ombredanne pombredanne at nexb.com
Sun Apr 9 18:55:41 UTC 2017

> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne at nexb.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 11:07 AM Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hey, all-
>> >> I promised some board members a summary of my investigation in '12-'13
>> >> into updating, supplementing, or replacing the "popular licenses" list.
>> >> Here
>> >> goes.
>> [...]
>> > Yet another (inevitably flawed) data set:
>> > https://libraries.io/licenses
>> With the merit that the all the underlying code is FLOSS.
>> Another possible source --always biased-- could be Debian's popcon and
>> some cross ref with debsources.

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Andrew Nesbitt <andrew at libraries.io> wrote:
> "inevitably flawed", would be great to get some feedback on how/why it's
> flawed so I can improve it?
> System level package managers are in the pipeline for the end of the year,
> but there are so fewer packages there that I can't see it moving the needle
> much

Andrew: my comment on "inevitably flawed" was to echo Luis point that any
open source  license popularity contest is likely to be flawed and biased one
way or another regardless of the data set that is considered as a basis.

That was not a reflection on any flaw in libraries.io which rocks!
Accept my apologies if it came across this way

Philippe Ombredanne

More information about the License-discuss mailing list