<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hi Johan, </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Great question. Here's a long
answer. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Q: The CPL was "superseded"
by the EPL. What happened? </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">A: This is the best explanation
I know of --> http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/2009/04/16/one-small-step-towards-reducing-license-proliferation/
. It also answers some helpful FAQ: </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">4. I have a CPL-licensed project. What do
I need to do?</font>
<p><font size=2 face="Arial">You can continue to use it if you want to,
although the whole reason we’re making this happen is because we wanted
to provide projects with an easy option to migrate to the EPL to help reduce
license proliferation.</font>
<p><font size=2 face="Arial">There is a very simple path to moving your
CPL-licensed project to the Eclipse Public License. Since the EPL has been
denoted as the successor version of the CPL, you can use a provision in
Section 7 (“In addition, after a new version of the Agreement is published,
Contributor may elect to distribute the Program (including its Contributions)
under the new version.”) to easily switch to the EPL.</font>
<p><font size=2 face="Arial">5. When does this take effect?</font>
<p><font size=2 face="Arial">Immediately. </font>
<p><font size=2 face="Arial">6. Wait a second! The CPL also says “Each
new version of the Agreement will be given a distinguishing version number.”
How can the EPL 1.0 be a new version of the CPL 1.0?</font>
<p><font size=2 face="Arial">Well, you’re right. We could have created
a CPL 1.1 that simply pointed to the EPL 1.0. But frankly that seemed a
lot more confusing than helpful. Especially since the licenses effectively
differ by about one-and-a-half sentences. However, more importantly, the
EPL is indeed the successor version to the CPL. The Eclipse Foundation
and its members developed the EPL from the CPL by modifying those one-and-a-half
sentences. The name of the license doesn’t change that history.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Q: What does this mean for IPOPT users?
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">A: Becuase the CPL license was superseded
by the EPL license (i.e., the contract changed), WITHOUT ANY CHANGES TO
THE IPOPT CODE OR LICENSE FILES, anyone who could distribute IPOPT under
the CPL can now distribute it under the EPL. </font>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Q: ...any plans to make the switch?</font></tt>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">A: So to answer your original question,
are there plans to switch? Yes, we're talking about it. Does
it matter? Not a lot. Anyone who wants to redistribute the
IPOPT code under the EPL already can. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">----------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">------- Caution: More than You May Want
to Know Section-----------</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">----------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Q: So why does it matter? </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">A: Some lawyers believe that the person
who takes the CPL code and distributes it under the EPL (aka "the
Switcher") is liable under the CPL in the case of a lawsuit, but everyone
who accepts the code from the Switcher under the EPL (aka "the Downstreamers")
is only liable under the terms of the EPL. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">So, if you're happily using IPOPT under
the current risk of lawsuit under the CPL - there's no issue. You
can be "the Switcher." </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">But suppose not? Suppose you are
admantly opposed to the risk of using IPOPT under the CPL and will ONLY
accept it under the EPL -- you won't be "the Switcher." What
do you do? You have to find someone willing to be the Switcher -
then you can get IPOPT under the EPL from them (if you believe like the
lawyers, that you will only be liable under the EPL...but opinions vary
on this...). </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">This is my understanding as a non-lawyer.
If you're in this "caution" section and concerned about
level of risk under the CPL vs EPL, talk to your lawyer. Hope
this was helpul. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Other potentially useful links:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">CPL FAQs --> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">EPL FAQs --> http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Robin</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">-------------------------------------------------------------------------</font>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Hi,<br>
<br>
I have a question about the Ipopt license, CPL: According to OSI, CPL <br>
has been superseded by the Eclipse Public License (EPL) (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php
<br>
) - any plans to make the switch?<br>
<br>
Best<br>
/Johan<br>
<br>
Johan Åkesson, PhD, Assistant Professor<br>
Deptm. of Automatic Control
E-mail: johan.akesson@control.lth.se<br>
Faculty of Engineering
WWW: www.control.lth.se/user/jakesson<br>
Lund University
Phone: +46 46 2228797<br>
Box 118
Fax:
+46 46 138118<br>
221 00 LUND</font></tt>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Robin Lougee, PhD<br>
Program Manager, COIN-OR<br>
IBM TJ Watson Research Center<br>
1101 Kitchawan Road, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598<br>
ph: 914-945-3032 fax: 914-945-3434 <br>
robinlh@us.ibm.com<br>
http://www.coin-or.org<br>
<br>
</font>