<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Thanks, Larry. The list is not designed exactly for the purpose of this discussion, but I thought it might provide some useful, objective data. Certainly not taking anything personally.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>All of your questions are good questions; most really important if one is recommending licenses which Black Duck generally, and the list absolutely, does not. The list is simply a ranking by “number of unique programs (in the Black Duck KnowledgeBase)
under the license.” We call them as we see them, i.e. identifying the license declared for each project. So, while you might make a great point about the 2- and 3-clause BSD, we make the distinction and let lawyers decide whether they “give a damn about” it.
We endeavor to capture any software freely available on the Internet and thus end up a long tail of associated licenses which are not strictly open source licenses. And, yes, we keep old projects and deprecated licenses. Understand that one of the key use
cases the data are meant to support is scanning code to discover its composition, and often old components (with old licenses) turn up in new code. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For lawyers who review code, the message of the top 20 list is that there’s a clear Paredo distribution; if you understand the top 10 or 20, you are in reasonable shape. This is back to Luis’ original point of which we should not lose sight; there are
a bunch of good reasons to steer developers towards a well-understood licenses. Hey maybe “well-understood” is a good alternative to “standard."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Lawrence Rosen <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span><<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>>, <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org">license-discuss@opensource.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:06:41 -0700<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span><<a href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org">license-discuss@opensource.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on "why standard licenses"?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:993340954;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1206302664 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi Philip,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Thanks for the Black Duck "Top 20" list of open source licenses. Your list is the best around, so please don't take the following criticism too personally. But this list demonstrates that even the ways that we calculate popularity are
flawed. For example:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Are GPLv2 and GPLv3 really one license nowadays with total 38% popularity, or still two licenses? [Ben Tilly already made that suggestion on this list.] And the classpath exception version of the GPL (at < 1%) qualifies that
license for yet a third spot on your "Top 20" list? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Same with the LGPL; is that one license at (5% and 2%, respectively) or one license at 7%?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Are these numbers based on lines of code created, numbers of unique programs under the license, or number of copies of the software actually distributed? For example, under what criteria does the zlib/libpng license count?
Wikipedia describes that license as intended for two specific software libraries but "also used by many other free software packages." That comment in Wikipedia is as vague and uninformative as the "< 1%" that you cite in your table. I say this to point out
that numbers on a list need to be *<b>interpreted</b>* and *<b>scaled</b>* to be useful.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Is there any value to listing the 2-clause and the 3-clause BSD licenses separately, given that no company lawyer in the world gives a damn about the distinctions between them? Meanwhile, every conversation about the BSD licenses
on these OSI email lists concludes with the following great suggestion: "Why don't you use the Apache License 2.0 instead?" If OSI is ever going to recommend answers to easy legal questions, surely this is among them. It serves absolutely no useful purpose
at this stage of our maturity to list each version of the BSD license separately – not even the two you placed on your list.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->You list the CDDL, a license created by a company that no longer exists and whose successor company doesn't use it. Do we still count deprecated licenses for as long as a even single copy of that code resides in the wild?
Not only that, but two versions of that single obsolete license are individually listed in the "Top 20".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Wikipedia refers to the CPOL license as "mainly applied to content that is being published on a single community site for software developers" known as The Code Project. Wikipedia further reports that the CPOL license is neither
"open" as defined by OSI nor "free" as defined by FSF. Why is it on your list at all?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">/Larry<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Philip Odence [<a href="mailto:podence@blackducksoftware.com">mailto:podence@blackducksoftware.com</a>]
<br>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 2:48 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org">license-discuss@opensource.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on "why standard licenses"?</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">million) that utilize each respective license.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="http://www.blackducksoftware.com/resources/data/top-20-open-source-licenses"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.blackducksoftware.com/resources/data/top-20-open-source-licenses</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The webpage only shows the top 20, but if OSI thought that 30, say, was a good number, we could provide those.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">By the way, we are working on improving the presentation of the list, but I didnąt want to wait for that before throwing the thought into the mix.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 4/28/14, 4:57 PM, "Richard Fontana" <<a href="mailto:fontana@sharpeleven.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">fontana@sharpeleven.org</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:31:06 -0700<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>Ben Tilly <<a href="mailto:btilly@gmail.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">btilly@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Suggested solution, can we use the word "common" instead of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> "standard"? And our definition of common should be something
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> relatively objective, like the top X licenses in use on github, minus >> licenses (like the GPL v2) whose authors are pushing to replace with
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> a different license.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>You'd exclude the most commonly-used FLOSS license from "common"?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> - RF<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>License-discuss mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">License-discuss@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">License-discuss mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">License-discuss@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list <a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org">
License-discuss@opensource.org</a> <a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss">
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</a> </span>
</body>
</html>