3 ms·

I've archived the link to be sure, and from what I see, MIT is first, followed by GPL2, followed by Apache. Here's the snapshot right now: http://archive.is/L4h

by cm3 10y ago

I've archived the link to be sure, and from what I see, MIT is first, followed by GPL2, followed by Apache. Here's the snapshot right now: http://archive.is/L4hLm http://archive.is/L4hLm (http://archive.is/L4hLm/image http://archive.is/L4hLm/image).

dublinben 10y ago
Combining versions 2 and 3 of the GPL makes it larger than MIT, at 30%.
- cm3 10y ago
  That's one way to look at it, so if you combine MIT and Apache => 42 (add BSD and ISC => 50).
  - toyg 10y ago
    Still not "most" in the absolute terms that prompted my response. "More" could be argued, "most" implies a dominance that is simply not there. I know it sounds like I'm nitpicking, but I'm just trying to explain the point.
    - cm3 10y ago
      I didn't cite numbers because I didn't base it on any, and it was probably sloppy to use the word "most". So, if I could go back and fix the post, I would say: "most new projects I've seen in the last few years...". Thanks for pointing out my lazy wording.
    - cm3 10y ago
      I didn't check all the other licenses on that page for copyleft/liberal, but assuming it's just GPL2,GPL3,LGPL2,LGPL3, it didn't look like the absolute sum would dominate, but these statistics are necessarily precise anyway because many projects are not under a consistent single license, so...
ghaff 10y ago
I wasn't trying to make any particular point as opposed to just presenting some data. As a quick summary, it seemed reasonable to combine the GPL versions while keeping the other different licenses separate (even if a number of them are of the weak/no-copyleft variety). In general, a variety of published analyses have shown a general increase in non-copyleft license use vs. strong copyleft but I haven't seen such an analysis recently. If I wanted to compare strong copyleft with no copyleft, I'd probably combine all the GPL variants (including LGPL and certainly GPL) and compare that number to, at a minimum, MIT + BSDs + Apache. That leaves out a lot of licenses in terms of absolute number but covers a pretty wide swath of projects.

by cm3 10y ago

dublinben 10y ago

Combining versions 2 and 3 of the GPL makes it larger than MIT, at 30%.

cm3 10y ago
That's one way to look at it, so if you combine MIT and Apache => 42 (add BSD and ISC => 50).
- toyg 10y ago
  Still not "most" in the absolute terms that prompted my response. "More" could be argued, "most" implies a dominance that is simply not there. I know it sounds like I'm nitpicking, but I'm just trying to explain the point.
  - cm3 10y ago
    I didn't cite numbers because I didn't base it on any, and it was probably sloppy to use the word "most". So, if I could go back and fix the post, I would say: "most new projects I've seen in the last few years...". Thanks for pointing out my lazy wording.
  - cm3 10y ago
    I didn't check all the other licenses on that page for copyleft/liberal, but assuming it's just GPL2,GPL3,LGPL2,LGPL3, it didn't look like the absolute sum would dominate, but these statistics are necessarily precise anyway because many projects are not under a consistent single license, so...

ghaff 10y ago

I wasn't trying to make any particular point as opposed to just presenting some data. As a quick summary, it seemed reasonable to combine the GPL versions while keeping the other different licenses separate (even if a number of them are of the weak/no-copyleft variety). In general, a variety of published analyses have shown a general increase in non-copyleft license use vs. strong copyleft but I haven't seen such an analysis recently. If I wanted to compare strong copyleft with no copyleft, I'd probably combine all the GPL variants (including LGPL and certainly GPL) and compare that number to, at a minimum, MIT + BSDs + Apache. That leaves out a lot of licenses in terms of absolute number but covers a pretty wide swath of projects.