Er, Yes, and What About the AGPL?

Here's a post explaining Google's support for just seven open source licences:

The trend around licensing is obvious: GPLv2/GPLv3 represent 42.6% of the projects, and Apache is 25.8%. MIT, BSD, and LGPL are at about 8% each, Artistic at 3.5%, and MPL 1.1 at a mere 2.7%. This follows my own observation about how people license their projects. If they are advocates of Free Software, they will choose GPL; advocates of Open Source will choose Apache (a more modern and thorough permissive license, compared to BSD or MIT). And this is exactly what I recommend to people: choose GPLv3 or Apache v2 based on your personal philosophy.

Well, actually, there's another rather important trend that is conspicuous by its absence: adoption of the Affero GPL. To which Google seems strangely allergic....

Open Source Rocks

There's nothing new about companies deciding to open source their products and make money in other ways. But it's still good to come across new examples of the breed to confirm that the logic remains as strong as ever.

A case in point is Symfony, which describes itself as "a web application framework for PHP5 projects". It is unusual in two respects: first, because it uses the liberal MIT licence, and secondly, because it is sponsored by a French company, Sensio. And according to them, open source rocks.