[Coin-discuss] license issues

[Jonathan Eckstein]

I *think* the presence of any GPL elements would prevent your code from 
being subsumed in a for-profit code, even if it also include CPL 
elements.  It's possible that is the "incompatibility" the wiki is 
talking about.  In this case, it is something you actually want.

   J E


John Pye wrote:
> 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
>> 
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Coin-discuss mailing list
> Coin-discuss at list.coin-or.org
> http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/coin-discuss