Open Source is what you make of it. I think that's what makes it so hard. I make some software, share it with the world... and then what? That's the question. M

Open Source is what you make of it. I think that's what makes it so hard. I make some software, share it with the world... and then what? That's the question. Most open source projects end up in one of three buckets: * Minimally maintained. Could be because it's good software and feature complete. Could be any number of other things (i.e. lost interest, no users) * Original author and contributors stay highly involved and guide the project. See Fossil for a great example. Python, too. * Users drive development by contributing. A lot of times, this looks like companies contributing code and money for specific features. It's not bad, but sometimes these projects evolve in bad directions for my specific use case. Sometimes these projects wouldn't exist (many of the Apache projects are of little utility to individuals, but great utility to organizations). The one thing that is certain is that the choice of a license has less to do with adoption than the quality and functionality of the software being adopted. I'll take on my own or my customer's legal department (who often makes rules that are not nearly as well thought out as one would expect) for good software.