Aside from the stats, which are not really surprising, I still find it very hard to get my head around licensing and I bet that this is the main reason why MIT is used. MIT is indeed the only license that is really understandable.<p>The mentioned choosealicense.com is not really helpful with choosing a license because it not really explains all the legal terms used, in my opinion. There are many blog articles out there but to this day I couldn't find a single overview that describes each of the major licenses in a regular-human way. And this overview is what I would need. Simple language, tailored to the most important questions: copyright, attribution, what can both non-commercial and commercial users do and what not, and what are my rights as the owner.
If you have any resources on this please share it!
> Changes to licensing in leading open source projects like Mongo DB and Redis are reminders that...<p>That the author should do their homeworks and get the facts right. Redis is BSD licensed for 10 years now. Redis modules by Redis Labs, never a part of the Redis core, changed license.<p>Article flagged because I can excuse a casual commenter here but if you write an article about OSS licensing and are not able to show facts in the correct way, for me there is no place on the HN top positions.