The Wiert Corner – irregular stream of stuff

Jeroen W. Pluimers on .NET, C#, Delphi, databases, and personal interests

  • My badges

  • Twitter Updates

    • @matijn (: Enneh: sterkte! 9 minutes ago
    • @IanColdwater Welcome back. I was worried too. Good to know that you are OK. Hope the turned down notifications made things bearable. 12 minutes ago
    • RT @francesc: I updated the slide deck from my "Introduction to Go" at @CERN earlier this year It now includes links to the recordings for… 20 minutes ago
    • RT @danidonovan: therapist: and what do we do when we’re feeling stressed? me: stop making plans, avoid text messages, and accidentally al… 28 minutes ago
    • RT @michaelbolton: 1) Thinking about counting things to measure quality? You might be able to measure *some things* *that bear on* quality.… 30 minutes ago
  • My Flickr Stream

  • Pages

  • All categories

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 1,642 other followers

Archive for the ‘Licensing’ Category

Top Open Source Licenses | Black Duck Software

Posted by jpluimers on 2019/05/10

About a year and a half ago, I came across the pie chart far below.

Luckily, the WayBack machine keeps historic copies of that page, so I could deduct the below table over time indicating the historic popularity of each license.

My deduction so far:

  1. The top 5 has the same ranking, but different percentages
  2. The rise of the MIT license popularity comes almost entirely out of the other top 5 entries
  3. Below the top 5, it’s about percentage points that differ

I wonder how this evolves further over time.

Oh: and I need to improve my graphing skills to show this table in a nice graph better than the one on the right which has rank over time for reach license from 2016 until 2017.

This is the data extracted from the historic WayBack links:

License Rank20170824 %20170824 Rank20161006 %20161006 Rank20160510 %20160510
MIT License 1 32% 1 28% 1 26%
GNU General Public License (GPL 2.0) 2 18% 2 20% 2 21%
Apache License 2.0 3 14% 3 16% 3 16%
GNU General Public License (GNU) 3.0 4 7% 4 8% 4 9%
BSD License 2.0 (3-clause, New or Revised) License 5 6% 5 6% 5 6%
ISC License 6 5% 8 4% 9 2%
Artistic License (Perl) 7 4% 6 4% 7 4%
GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 2.1 8 4% 7 4% 6 4%
GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 3.0 9 2% 9 2% 8 2%
Eclipse Public License (EPL) 10 1% 11 2% 11 2%
Microsoft Public License 11 1% 10 2% 10 2%
Simplified BSD License (BSD) 12 1% 12 1% 14 < 1%
Code Project Open License 1.02 13 1% 13 1% 12 1%
Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.1 14 < 1% 14 < 1% 13 < 1%
GNU Affero General Public License v3 or later 15 < 1% 16 < 1% 16 < 1%
Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) 16 < 1% 15 < 1% 15 < 1%
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE 17 < 1% 18 < 1% 19 < 1%
Microsoft Reciprocal License 18 < 1% 17 < 1% 17 < 1%
Sun GPL with Classpath Exception v2.0 19 < 1% 19 < 1% 18 < 1%
zlib/libpng License 20 < 1%
CDDL-1.1 20 < 1% 20 < 1%

–jeroen

Source: Top Open Source Licenses | Black Duck Software

Posted in Development, Licensing, Software Development | Leave a Comment »

When your license check is faulty and causes customers to loose work it’s a cardinal sin

Posted by jpluimers on 2016/02/04

I wrote about this before, named it a cardinal sin too, but I seem to have to repeat this:

When your product thinks the license is validate and quits without allowing the customer to save its work, then you’ve committed a cardinal sin.

Yes, I can talk about cardinal sins: I’ve been named after the artist Hieronymus Bosch (:

For me it is OK if a product checks for binaries that do not to the product (and not signed by the vendor) in the product directories and fails to start, or to present a nag screen that takes a while to disappear, or even to limit functionality.

But:

  1. The product should always tell why the license check failed.
  2. The product never can force the customer to loose work.
  3. The documentation should show failure situations (not just the OK counterparts).

Given some recent posts and the fact that over the course of 10 different versions I lost days of work and at conferences I usually get multiple questions from people having suffered from this, I really had to bring this up again.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Delphi, Development, Licensing, Software Development | 7 Comments »

Quite weird. About 80% of the repos on github have no license…

Posted by jpluimers on 2015/03/25

Reminder to Self (this?) put a LICENSE .txt or LICENSE.md file in all my repos.

It isn’t difficult to choose one:

For new repositories, GitHub even has a license picker.

Thanks Jan Wildeboer for reminding me.

–jeroen

PS: most of the things I put on-line are using a BSD 3-clause “New” or “Revised” License. But I might go for a simpler one. It doesn’t hurt looking at your licenses every now and then.

Posted in Development, Licensing, Software Development | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: