[Coin-discuss] license issues

[Hart, William E]

John:

I didn't help develop CPL, but my understanding is that the principal
motivation for CPL was that it enabled commercial entities to use the
code without enforcing code-distribution requirements on them.  Thus,
someone like IBM could integrate CPL code, modify it, and distribute it
commercially without being required to redistribute those changes to the
public.

This sort of policy goes against the grain of the GNU open source
distribution policy, but in practice I have observed that commercial
entities using CPL code remain interested in fostering improvements in
the code.

It's clear to me that this sort of license is not what you're interested
in for ASCEND.  I don't think you could argue that IPOPT _should_ be
distributed with the LGPL license.  However, the IPOPT developers are
free to license IPOPT under LGPL as well, for inclusion in a project
like ASCEND.

--Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: coin-discuss-bounces at list.coin-or.org 
> [mailto:coin-discuss-bounces at list.coin-or.org] On Behalf Of John Pye
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 9:09 AM
> To: Discussions about open source software for Operations Research
> Subject: Re: [Coin-discuss] license issues
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> I'm not all that clear on it myself. I found these comments 
> on Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Public_License
> 
> CPL would be one of the less common open source licenses. 
> Given that it's said to be incompatible with the far-and-away 
> most common open source license, namely the GPL, I'm curious 
> why it was that CPL was chosen for COIN? I wonder if you 
> could perhaps explain what the conditions were that you 
> wanted to enforce?
> 
> In the case of my project, ASCEND, for example, we wanted to 
> make a completely free modelling tool that could not be 
> swallowed up inside a larger commercial piece of software 
> without our explicit agreement.
> Perhaps it is important that use of IPOPT and other COIN 
> software be allowed inside commercial stuff. In that case, 
> perhaps the LGPL would be a better choice than the CPL?
> 
> Cheers
> JP
> 
> Hart, William E wrote:
> 
> >FYI, the discussion that JP refers to is available at:
> >
> >  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
> >
> >I can't say that I understand the gist of the incompatibility...
> >
> >--Bill
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: coin-discuss-bounces at list.coin-or.org
> >>[mailto:coin-discuss-bounces at list.coin-or.org] On Behalf Of John Pye
> >>Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 7:59 AM
> >>To: coin-discuss at list.coin-or.org
> >>Subject: [Coin-discuss] license issues
> >>
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>I've just come across COIN and the IPOPT solver, and was thinking 
> >>about looking at it as a possible open source alternative to the 
> >>CONOPT solver that we currently rely on for some of the 
> functionality 
> >>in the ASCEND modelling environment (another CMU project).
> >>
> >>I was wondering why IPOPT has chosen the Common Public License.
> >>According to the GNU website, this license is not 
> compatible with the 
> >>GPL, which means that although IPOPT is open source, we 
> can't legally 
> >>distribute it with our software. Perversely, it seems that it is 
> >>easier to use IPOPT in commercial projects than in free projects!
> >>
> >>Is there a good reason why the CPL is applied to IPOPT -- perhaps 
> >>another license could be used instead, such as the GPL or LGPL 
> >>license?
> >>
> >>I note that this discussion also appears to have taken place on the 
> >>CppAd list, and the Boost license was suggested there as an 
> >>alternative.
> >>
> >>Cheers
> >>JP
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Coin-discuss mailing list
> >>Coin-discuss at list.coin-or.org
> >>http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/coin-discuss
> >>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Coin-discuss mailing list
> >Coin-discuss at list.coin-or.org
> >http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/coin-discuss
> >  
> >
> 
>