Most people are ignoring licenses, because most developers think they have won.
There is a generation of developers for whom software freedom is in the bones.
Why bother putting a license on code, or releasing code under compatible licenses -its all free and open.
This attitude may seem naive - but i see it as wondrous - any attempts to put the genie back in the box will not be met by court cases led by Lessig, but simple mass global disobedience - software is free when everyone simply thinks it is free.
I don't know the original study in detail, but given my time on github I see a ton of 'projects' which are just small scraps of test code, heck even dot files.
I can certainly see why people don't bother putting a licence on these types of 'projects'.
However on all projects I've come across which are actually something substantial there has been a licence declared, so I'm wondering if this 'lack of licencing' is a 'real' problem or if it's just the result of github becoming a convenient dumping ground/backup for tons of small snippets/settings etc which used to just sit on people's harddrives.
There is a generation of developers for whom software freedom is in the bones.
Why bother putting a license on code, or releasing code under compatible licenses -its all free and open.
This attitude may seem naive - but i see it as wondrous - any attempts to put the genie back in the box will not be met by court cases led by Lessig, but simple mass global disobedience - software is free when everyone simply thinks it is free.