On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 4:48 AM Henrik Ingo <[email protected]> wrote:
> - According to many imprecise metrics, 99% of all open source software > in the world is covered by a list of about 20 licenses > (https://web.archive.org/web/20190115063327/https://www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses) > - OSI list is 82 licenses, plus 15 retired or superceded licenses. So > it follows that this covers way more than 99% of open source software > ever written. > - Naturally there will be a lot more licenses that also do comply with > the OSD. Especially if they are trivial variations of an approved > license. > - When we say that software is only open source if released with an > OSI approved license, it really comes with this rounding error that > 0,0..1% of software exists that is also open source. In practical > terms this is small enough that it is not worth to mention separately, > rather the "fundamenalist" statement is close enough. But very often -- at least in the traditional Linux distribution universe I spend a lot of time in -- non-OSI-approved legacy (generally non-copyleft) licenses appear *within* packages that are portrayed or at least popularly conceived as being under another license, whether that's a copyleft or noncopyleft license. I think the value of 'mass legacy approval' might be to address the criticism I've seen of the OSI apparently claiming that non-approved licenses are not open source or validly referred to as open source when no one could credibly argue that they are not open source. It would also address my concerns about Van's interpretation. But I'm not sure whether the effort would be justified. Richard _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
