The Most Popular Licenses On GitHub & SourceForge

[phoronix]

Phoronix: The Most Popular Licenses On GitHub & SourceForge

What are the most popular software licenses on GitHub and SourceForge? What about on CodePlex and the Apache Software Foundation? Here's some numbers...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTg4NDY

[Calinou]

It isn't surprising to see so much Expat/MIT license on GitHub, as GitHub hosts a lot of very small, Web-related projects (where that license is popular).

[Guest]

GPL rules which isn't surprising at all. This is testament to BSD fanboys and their idiotic claims. Even at MS Codeplex GPL is much more popular than BSD. What a shame.

[xeekei]

It seems that MIT has overtaken BSD as the permissive licence-poster boy.

[GreatEmerald]

Well, this isn't a very fair comparison. For one, at this point there's no reason to use SourceForge's code repositories, as GitHub (or Gitorious, or even Bitbucket) are just better. And GitHub hosts not only public, but also private repositories for businesses and whatnot.

OpenHub is probably a bit more representative of the FOSS landscape. And it shows GPL at 36% (GPLv2 25% and GPLv3 10%), and Expat at 19%: https://www.blackducksoftware.com/re...ource-licenses Oddly enough, it shows that SVN is still more used than git: https://www.openhub.net/repositories/compare

[ObiWan]

They should have split GPL2 and 3 for this graphic

[jake_lesser]

GPL rules which isn't surprising at all. This is testament to BSD fanboys and their idiotic claims. Even at MS Codeplex GPL is much more popular than BSD. What a shame.

BSD fanboys and extremists are beyond the possibility of reasoning no matter how clear the facts are. They'll just keep talking shit and troll.

In fact there's some BSD extremist on facebook who is causing a lot of grief by trolling and lying (as shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAhjFt383bQ).

By the way, here's a youtube video of a user destroying their BSD installation (probably due to frustration with the BSD crap). It's great to see BSD installations getting what they are worth:

[caligula]

It seems that MIT has overtaken BSD as the permissive licence-poster boy.

BSD license has the problematic attribution clause. MIT is much more practical for commercial use. Imagine using some library like x264 in a smart TV and you'd need to display authors of all small libraries during bootup. It's a dealbreaker. Commercial products won't succeed if you're forced to advertise all hobby projects of the deep dependencies of e.g. ffmpeg and libx264.

[bridgman]

BSD license has the problematic attribution clause. MIT is much more practical for commercial use. Imagine using some library like x264 in a smart TV and you'd need to display authors of all small libraries during bootup. It's a dealbreaker. Commercial products won't succeed if you're forced to advertise all hobby projects of the deep dependencies of e.g. ffmpeg and libx264.

I wonder if 2-clause BSD (fairly recent, and very similar to MIT) gets counted as BSD or MIT ? Most people who glance at a 2-clause BSD license think "MIT" when they see it...

I guess the proper term would be "X11" rather than "MIT", since AFAIK there are a number of different MIT licenses.

[GreatEmerald]

I wonder if 2-clause BSD (fairly recent, and very similar to MIT) gets counted as BSD or MIT ? Most people who glance at a 2-clause BSD license think "MIT" when they see it...

I'd assume it doesn't really matter, as it doesn't seem to be used by that many projects.

I guess the proper term would be "X11" rather than "MIT", since AFAIK there are a number of different MIT licenses.

Expat. X11 has the X Consortium advertisement disclaimer. But yes, the "MIT" name is indeed inappropriate.