[License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses
luis at lu.is
Wed Jan 25 15:09:23 UTC 2017
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 2:14 AM Stefano Zacchiroli <zack at opensource.org>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:04:40PM +0000, Luis Villa wrote:
> > - Top 10 open source licenses
> > <
> > from WhiteSource. Top 5 are same as Black Duck, but BlackDuck has
> Perl at
> > #6 and ISC at #7 (despite being deprecated by ISC!) and MS-PL doesn't
> > the top 10; WhiteSource doesn't have ISC or Perl and has MS-PL at #7.
> For the records, and unless I'm missing something, this seems to be at
> the same level of "scientificity" of the yearly report by Black Duck: we
> don't know what's in the database of "over 3M open source components and
> 70M source files", we don't know what they count to produce the pie
> charts (files? "components"? popularity? etc.), nor we have access to
> the code used to due the counting.
That is correct, as far as I can tell. My point in sharing (which I should
have made explicit) is that those differences do have an impact on
outcomes, though possibly only at the margins.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss