Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 11:07 AM Luis Villa 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

Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses

Richard Fontana wrote: > Interesting but at first glance the data seems too unreliable to be of any > use. I started checking the identified projects under the so-called Clear BSD > license (the FSF-free, never-OSI-submitted BSD variant that explicitly > excludes patent licenses) and the ones

Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses

Interesting but at first glance the data seems too unreliable to be of any use. I started checking the identified projects under the so-called Clear BSD license (the FSF-free, never-OSI-submitted BSD variant that explicitly excludes patent licenses) and the ones I looked at were all spurious

Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses

Yet another (inevitably flawed) data set: https://libraries.io/licenses On Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 11:07 AM Luis Villa wrote: > [Apparently I got unsubscribed at some point, so if you've sent an email > here in recent months seeking my feedback, please resend.] > > Hey, all- > I promised