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

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > What's the "right" level to scan at? Top-level project-declared LICENSE > file? Or per-file throughout the tree? (Note that often those two measures > don't agree with each other.) MO is that the right level is scan at both levels and if needed

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

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:57 AM Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM Philippe Ombredanne > > > wrote: > >> > >> 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 b

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

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote: > But I think that at some point it would be helpful for there to be a > resource for people to sift through all the licenses on the list to > understand what they do and don’t do. You may also consider this https://enterprise.dejacode.com/licen

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

> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM Philippe Ombredanne > wrote: >> >> 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, supp

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

project – which is what I think Larry was suggesting might be helpful). From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 11:32 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] notes on a

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

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: Isn’t that exactly what https://tldrlegal.com does? They even have the > OSI-approved ones marked and sorted by popularity (as determined by > eyeballs on their site): https://tldrlegal.com/licenses/tags/OSI-Approved > For people

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

> On Apr 7, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote: > > But I think that at some point it would be helpful for there to be a resource > for people to sift through all the licenses on the list to understand what > they do and don’t do. Isn’t that exactly what https://tldrlegal.com

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

] On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 9:40 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Cc: Lawrence Rosen Subject: Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses Richard Fontana wrote: > Interesting but at first glance the data seems too

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 >> goes. [...] > Yet anoth

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

contain anything legally new (non-proliferation), or (2) they don't satisfy the OSD (not open source). /Larry From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 8:51 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.o

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 matche

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 some board m

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

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 2:14 AM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:04:40PM +, Luis Villa wrote: > >- Top 10 open source licenses > >< > https://www.whitesourcesoftware.com/whitesource-blog/open-source-software-licenses-trends/ > > > >from WhiteSource. Top 5 are s

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

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:04:40PM +, Luis Villa wrote: >- Top 10 open source licenses > > >from WhiteSource. Top 5 are same as Black Duck, but BlackDuck has Perl at >#6 and ISC at #7 (d

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

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:56 PM Richard Fontana wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 04:07:53PM +, Luis Villa wrote: > *Supplementing with high-quality, value-adding options* > To encourage progress, while still avoiding proliferation, I'd suggest a > second list of licenses that are good but not

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

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: I had thought it might be preferable to return to the original > "popular list" and just make clear that it is the product of a > now-distant point in time, but I now believe this solution would > probably be seen by many as worse than the c

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

Luis Thanks for keeping this discussion alive. My comments: As for popular licenses, I generally agree with your suggestions. I would also argue that coming up with a list of de-facto most popular licenses shouldn't be as bitterly controversial as you're prepared for, and maybe the history of thi

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

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 04:07:53PM +, Luis Villa wrote: > With all that in mind, I think that OSI needs a (mostly) data-driven > "popular" shortlist, based on a scan of public code + application of > (mostly?) objective rules to the outcome of that scan. > > To maintain OSI's reputation as be

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

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 04:07:53PM +, Luis Villa wrote: > The proliferation report attempted to address this problem by categorizing > existing licenses. These categories were, intentionally or not, seen as the > "popular or strong communities list" and "everything else". Without a > process o

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

[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 some board members a summary of my investigation in '12-'13 into updating, supplementing, or replacing the "popular licenses" list. Here goes.