> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM Philippe Ombredanne <pombreda...@nexb.com> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Luis Villa <l...@lu.is> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 11:07 AM Luis Villa <l...@lu.is> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hey, all- >> >> I promised some board members a summary of my investigation in '12-'13 >> >> into updating, supplementing, or replacing the "popular licenses" list. >> >> Here >> >> goes. >> [...] >> > Yet another (inevitably flawed) data set: >> > https://libraries.io/licenses >> >> With the merit that the all the underlying code is FLOSS. >> >> Another possible source --always biased-- could be Debian's popcon and >> some cross ref with debsources.
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Andrew Nesbitt <and...@libraries.io> wrote: > "inevitably flawed", would be great to get some feedback on how/why it's > flawed so I can improve it? > > System level package managers are in the pipeline for the end of the year, > but there are so fewer packages there that I can't see it moving the needle > much Andrew: my comment on "inevitably flawed" was to echo Luis point that any open source license popularity contest is likely to be flawed and biased one way or another regardless of the data set that is considered as a basis. That was not a reflection on any flaw in libraries.io which rocks! Accept my apologies if it came across this way -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
