[Coin-discuss] RE: license issues

[kevin.c.furman at exxonmobil.com]

> 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.

I don't believe this is an accurate statement.  If a commercial entity
modifies CPL code and distributes it, they are still obligated to release
the full source code.

The CPL, like the LGPL and GPL, enables a commercial organization to use
the code and make changes as it pleases without source code release
requirement as long as it uses it internally only.  However, if this
organization were to distribute it externally, it is obligated to release
the source code.  The primary difference between the GPL and the CPL (or
LGPL) is that the GPL requires that if GPL software is distributed with
some software and either linked or integrated, the source code for the
entire package needs to be released.  Whereas the CPL and LGPL allow for
distribution as linked libraries as part of a larger software package
(either free or commercial) without the requirement that all of the
additional software source code be released.  It seems that legalese on
patent issues are what makes the CPL incompatible with the GPL.

I could be wrong, but I think that even though the GPL may be incompatible
with the CPL, the LGPL is probably compatible