<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">IBM chose the CPL because the GPL is
*more* restrictive, and because GPL does not have disclaimers.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Alan King<br>
Math Sciences<br>
IBM Thomas J Watson Research Center<br>
914-945-1236<br>
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/k/kingaj/</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>kevin.c.furman@exxonmobil.com</b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: coin-discuss-bounces@list.coin-or.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">04/11/2008 03:00 PM</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">coin-discuss@list.coin-or.org</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [Coin-discuss] COIN-OR licences
again...</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>>> As for the dual licensing idea, that has
been discussed on and off for a<br>
<br>
>> long time and there is very little chance of it happening. However,
we<br>
<br>
> Could you give a reason why this is unlikely? That it has been discussed<br>
> a couple of times just underlines that there is a need to change<br>
> things...<br>
<br>
...<br>
<br>
> Well that does not really sound dispassionate. If the reason why dual<br>
> licensing is not an option is that there is a strong dislike ?against<br>
> any GPL compatible license from the people in charge here, then nothing<br>
> will change. If the aim is to see coin-or projects widely used however<br>
> it is important to consider dual licensing with another more compatible<br>
> license. As I guess the goal for IBM to open sourcing this project
was<br>
> so see it widely used and extended I would hope that a solution can
be<br>
> found.<br>
<br>
I don't believe there is any particular dislike of GPL compatible licenses.<br>
I think the main concern is that IBM chose the wording of the CPL for a<br>
particular reason even though it was known to be incompatible with the
GPL.<br>
Many of the contributors to COIN-OR are IBM employees, and thus are not
the<br>
decision makers when it comes to intellectual property derived from their<br>
efforts. The primary people needing convincing on dual licensing
with a<br>
GPL compatible licene are not COIN-OR contributors, but Big Blue itself.<br>
Although IBM's primary goal may be to see the projects widely used, they<br>
probably also have other concerns related to protecting their patent<br>
portfolio and control of the actual CPL terms which makes it unlikely they<br>
would ever allow for the dual licensing any of the code under GPL or LGPL.<br>
<br>
License is a choice. A choice was made. Regardless of how much
easier it<br>
might make life for others, I think we need to respect someone's choice
in<br>
how they want their intellectual property licensed.<br>
<br>
In my opinion, of one wanted to pursue this line of thought, the path of<br>
least resistance would be to look at the CPL and analyze exactly what terms<br>
would need to be modified at a minimum to make it GPL compatible. From<br>
that point then try encourage creation of a new version of the CPL such<br>
that current CPL code could all be licensed under the new version.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Coin-discuss mailing list<br>
Coin-discuss@list.coin-or.org<br>
http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/coin-discuss<br>
</font></tt>
<br>