I'm fairly certain the GPL is still more popular.
I'm fairly certain the GPL is still more popular.
MIT is loved by business, that can take the code from others, packaged it with a new shinny face, sell it and don't return anything back.
But one discovers who they are when their customers have problems.
% rpm -qai | awk '$1 == "License" { print $3 }' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -n10
1248 LPPL-1.0
558 GPL-2.0+
301 MIT
293 LGPL-2.1+
221 BSD-3-Clause
138 GPL-2.0
131 GPL-3.0+
115 SUSE-Public-Domain
79 Artistic-1.0
41 Apache-2.0
And actually I haven't counted dual-licensing. Here's an even better script: % rpm -qai | awk '$1 == "License" { print $3 }' | grep GPL | wc -l
1316
% rpm -qai | awk '$1 == "License" { print $3 }' | grep MIT | wc -l
302Lets suggest following criteria for a survey:
1#, no duplicates. A survey with duplicate has no meaning. Github data in the blog post do not exclude dubplicates.
2#, no empty projects. A project with no data in it is not actually a project. The Github data do not exclude such projects.
3#, only project with code in them. A lot of github projects is text collaboration, like party planning, discussion around the latests online drama, and so on. Github data do not exclude those.
4#, only project with running code that is useful for at least 1 person. Random data, incomplete or abandon attempts is not actually "a software project". Github data do not attempt to run projects, and very much do not limit its data storage to only code that works.
To my knowledge, only one license survey exist that passes those criteria, and that one was based on the curated repository of Debian. The study showed GPL to be heavily favored (80%), but the study concluded that more such studies (and discussion on research methodology) is highly needed.
Incidentally, there are at least three GPL licenses, plus hackneyed variations. Not all permit "upgrading" to the latest GPL from FSF.
No dig on GPL. Important license. Keeps plenty of lawyers busy ;-P