In December, FOSSology turned one year old as a public open source project, and at the same time we released version 1.0 of the software analysis framework.
dgstangel's blog
FOSSBazaar is no longer being updated. The information on this site is preserved for your convenience but may be out of date. Please visit Linux Foundation's Open Compliance Program for current information and activities.
FOSS Name Calling
Almost everyone has their own names for licenses, even if they differ just a little. Does it matter if I call a particular open source license “Danger's Public License version 1.5,” “DPLv1.5,” or "MIT-sytle license, variant 7"? This is essentially a problem of taxonomy, and it makes a big difference in how you hunt for licenses.
Equally important, everyone has their own idea of which licenses they care about and don't care about. Some organizations cannot embrace certain licenses or families of licenses, while others merely want to ensure that the software they use or produce fits into a predefined library of vetted licenses. This is an issue of value judgments and legal interpretation. Licenses might be considered "Good" or "Bad", "Of Interest", "Awesome", or "Purple", depending on who you are and how you plan to use the software.
Equally important, everyone has their own idea of which licenses they care about and don't care about. Some organizations cannot embrace certain licenses or families of licenses, while others merely want to ensure that the software they use or produce fits into a predefined library of vetted licenses. This is an issue of value judgments and legal interpretation. Licenses might be considered "Good" or "Bad", "Of Interest", "Awesome", or "Purple", depending on who you are and how you plan to use the software.