Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Pr20130404 wh ftf legal workshop amsterdam license proliferation v02


Published on

Presentation on a preliminary empirical study we did on actual open source license proliferation.

Published in: Business, Technology, Automotive
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Pr20130404 wh ftf legal workshop amsterdam license proliferation v02

  1. 1. License proliferationAn extremely naive quantitative analysisbased on FLOSSMOLE dataApril 4th, 2013Walter van Holstw.van.holst@mitopics.nlIndependent IT consultancy through its combination of technical, business and legal expertise
  2. 2. Programme Background Methodology Initial results Conclusions/Q+A
  3. 3. License proliferation In 2009 Mitopics sponsored a Master’s thesis onlicense proliferation Qualitative analysis Contradictory results Time for a quantitative follow-up Little data available in 2009
  4. 4. Freecode dataset Published since about 2005 Jump in quality around 2009
  5. 5. License proliferation measurements What is license proliferation? The distribution of licenses across licenses? Or just a compatibility problem? And is one-way compatibility enough?
  6. 6. How do we value compatibility Extremely naively: Treat open source projects as nodes of a network Consider any combination as a desirable one Treat any combination as of equal value asothers Metcalfe’s law: n*(n-1)/2
  7. 7. Programme Background Methodology Initial results Conclusions/Q+A
  8. 8. Methodology FLOSSmole contains a wealth of data However… … quite a lot of pollution So far the Freecode (formerly Freshmeat) codeset is most useful, but only after 2009
  9. 9. 2009GPL72%LGPL8%BSD7%GPL23%GPL32%MIT2%Artistic License2%APL21%OSI Approved1%MPL1% APL1%0% 0%
  10. 10. What are the network valuesGPL 38171 728493535LGPL 7242 26219661BSD+MIT 3651 6663075GPL2 32738 535871953GPL3 32868 540136278Artistic License 4915 12076155APL2 4612 10632966MPL 4878 11895003APL 4252 9037626Total potential 38674 747819801Value loss 19326266
  11. 11. So… … license proliferation was not a massiveproblem in 2009 despite the occurence ofseveral incompatible licenses
  12. 12. GPL63%LGPL9%BSD8%GPL35%GPL25%MIT3%Artistic License2%APL22% Other1%MPL1%APL1% 0% 0%2010Total potential 534595951Value loss 30771055
  13. 13. GPL61%LGPL9%BSD9%GPLv36%GPL25%MIT3%APL22%Artistic License2%Other1%MPL1%APL1%2011Potential value 565908903Value loss 56417822
  14. 14. GPL59%LGPL9%BSD9%GPLv37%GPL25%MIT4%APL22%ArtisticLicense2%Other1%MPL1%APL1%2012Potential value 599601135Value loss 79779489
  15. 15. GPL58%LGPL9%BSD9%GPLv37%GPL25%MIT4%APL23%ArtisticLicense2%Other1%MPL1%APL1%GPL2+0%2013Potential value 621580911Value loss 60372158
  16. 16. Programme Background Methodology Initial results Conclusions/Q+A
  17. 17. Some cautious conclusions Fragmentation was not a big problem to beginwith Grew with the rift within the GPL-communities May be subsiding again, thanks to adoption ofAPL2 and GPL2+