<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">CPL does not prevent anyone from bundling
all of COIN and distributing it under GPL, so long as the disclaimers are
present. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">What is the problem?</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>Ted Ralphs <ted@lehigh.edu></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 12:42 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">Soeren Sonnenburg <Soeren.Sonnenburg@first.fraunhofer.de></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</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">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>Personal like/dislike of the FSF/GPL are not at all
the reason for the<br>
improbability of adoption of a dual licensing scheme for COIN. For<br>
practical reasons, I personally would probably agree to dual license the<br>
software for which I am the copyright holder if others would follow<br>
suit. As far as the reasons why it is unlikely that other copyright<br>
holders would do this, I can only speculate, as many others have already<br>
done in this thread and others. Ultimately, someone within the<br>
organizations holding the copyrights has to champion this cause and even<br>
then, I would say the chances are very slim. As several have pointed<br>
out, if the GPL were an acceptable alternative to the parties concerned,<br>
why would the CPL exist in the first place? Food for thought...<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Ted<br>
<br>
Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:<br>
> On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 11:31 -0400, Ted Ralphs wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Ted,<br>
> <br>
>> As a point of information relevant to this thread, there is an
effort <br>
>> underway by members of the Technical Leadership Council and others
to <br>
>> develop a set of RPM's and .debs for Linux that will include the
vast <br>
>> majority of the projects. Of course, we will not be able to link
with <br>
>> any third-party libraries that are GPL'd, but nevertheless, we
have been <br>
>> able to build distributable binaries of most of the projects.
I don't <br>
>> think the fact that the binaries will be under the CPL should
impact <br>
>> most users that much, though clearly the license conflict is less
than <br>
>> ideal. Stay tuned for more details.<br>
> <br>
> I agree, for pure users it does not matter, as they won't mess with
the<br>
> code. In the case of COIN-OR it is different though, as it is made
for<br>
> developers who like to use and extend the code...<br>
> <br>
>> As for the dual licensing idea, that has been discussed on and
off for a <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>
>> will keep the conversation going. To date, there has not been
universal <br>
>> agreement in the legal community that the clauses in the GPL that
forbid <br>
>> dynamic linking are enforceable, but for now, we are not in a
position <br>
>> to test those waters. Hopefully, someone will do so at some point
and we <br>
>> will have a legitimate and dispassionate legal interpretation
rather <br>
>> than the FSFs self-interested one.<br>
> <br>
> I would not want this to end up in a discussion whether the GPL valid,<br>
> good or bad. Lets simply accept (or tolerate) the FSF's position here<br>
> and find a solution with which everyone, IBM, COIN-OR developers and<br>
> (potential) COIN-OR users are happy.<br>
> <br>
>> One can argue that encouraging wider <br>
>> use of the GPL is not actually good for open source, but it is
a <br>
>> practical reality that much of the world's OS software is GPL'd,
so that <br>
>> is the reality we have to deal with. Thanks for your support!<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>
> Best,<br>
> Soeren<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Dr. Ted Ralphs<br>
Associate Professor<br>
Industrial and Systems Engineering<br>
Lehigh University<br>
(610)758-4784<br>
ted 'at' lehigh 'dot' edu<br>
coral.ie.lehigh.edu/~ted<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>