<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">According to the CPL, anyone can redistribute
the software under any kind of license, provided the terms of the CPL are
met. These are: the disclaimers, and where to get the source code
if it is not included in the bundle.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Again -- what is the problem?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Alan</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>Soeren Sonnenburg <Soeren.Sonnenburg@first.fraunhofer.de></b>
</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">04/11/2008 02:08 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">Ted Ralphs <ted@lehigh.edu></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Alan King/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, 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>Indeed, there must be some misunderstanding. I am
bringing up this<br>
discussion because the only ways to combine (and redistribute) GPL'd and<br>
CPL'd code is to <br>
<br>
a) get the copyright holders of the GPL'd code to add an explicit<br>
exception that it is OK to link with the project using CPL'd code<br>
<br>
and <br>
<br>
b) get the copyright holders of the CPL'd code to dual license to a GPL<br>
compatible license<br>
<br>
Soeren<br>
<br>
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 13:14 -0400, Ted Ralphs wrote:<br>
> Somewhere, there's a misunderstanding. Are you saying that anyone
can<br>
> redistribute CPL'd software under the GPL? This is not true. Only
the<br>
> copyright holders can change the license. In source code form, you
can<br>
> distribute a combination of GPL'd and CPL'd code, but the CPL'd code<br>
> remains under the CPL. You cannot distribute binaries derived from<br>
> combinations of the two. The CPL would allow this, but the GPL does
not.<br>
> <br>
> Cheers,<br>
> <br>
> Ted<br>
> <br>
> Alan King wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> > CPL does not prevent anyone from bundling all of COIN and distributing<br>
> > it under GPL, so long as the disclaimers are present. <br>
> > What is the problem?<br>
> > <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/<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > *Ted Ralphs <ted@lehigh.edu>*<br>
> > Sent by: coin-discuss-bounces@list.coin-or.org<br>
> > <br>
> > 04/11/2008 12:42 PM<br>
> > <br>
> >
<br>
> > To<br>
> >
Soeren Sonnenburg <Soeren.Sonnenburg@first.fraunhofer.de><br>
> > cc<br>
> >
coin-discuss@list.coin-or.org<br>
> > Subject<br>
> >
Re: [Coin-discuss] COIN-OR licences again...<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> >
<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > 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>
> > <br>
> <br>
> <br>
-- <br>
Soeren Sonnenburg - Fraunhofer FIRST Tel: +49 (30)
6392 1882<br>
Kekulestr. 7, 12489 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49 (30)
6392 1805<br>
</font></tt>
<br>