[Coin-discuss] license issues

[Robert Fourer]

Someone (Matt?) pointed out to me once that the license text in the AMPL-Solver
Library source files is a Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer, for
which a template is listed at www.opensource.org/licenses/historical.php.  I
notice that this listing now also includes the line:  "This License has been
voluntarily deprecated by its author."  Could it be that this license form is
older than the Open Source Initiative?

-- Bob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Waechter [mailto:andreasw at watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:29 AM
> To: 4er at iems.northwestern.edu; Discussions about open source software for
> Operations Research
> Subject: RE: [Coin-discuss] license issues
> 
> Technically speaking, I don't think it is correct that the ASL is released
> as open source, since it does not come with a license approved by the open
> source committee.  It is release under the license below (taken from a
> source file), which I think is called a BSD-style license:
> 
> ---------- 8< ------------------------
> 
> Copyright (C) 1997-2001 Lucent Technologies
> All Rights Reserved
> 
> Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
> its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby
> granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all
> copies and that both that the copyright notice and this
> permission notice and warranty disclaimer appear in supporting
> documentation, and that the name of Lucent or any of its entities
> not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to
> distribution of the software without specific, written prior
> permission.
> 
> LUCENT DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE,
> INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS.
> IN NO EVENT SHALL LUCENT OR ANY OF ITS ENTITIES BE LIABLE FOR ANY
> SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
> WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER
> IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION,
> ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF
> THIS SOFTWARE.
> 
> ---------- 8< ------------------------
> 
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Robert Fourer wrote:
> 
> > Since AMPL came up in the discussion, I thought I'd also mention a few
> related
> > issues ...
> >
> > It's true that the AMPL-Solver Library is only needed for building the
> > AMPL-interfaced version of IPOPT.  But to further complicate matters, the
> > AMPL-Solver Library has been released as open source, but under a license
> > different from either GPL or CPL (indeed COIN-OR was not yet on the scene
> when
> > the AMPL library was first made available).  I'm not sure whether this adds
> > further difficulties to the distribution of binaries for AMPL/IPOPT, which
> > would be convenient to have.
> >
> > AMPL only interacts with a solver by writing a file and setting some
> > environment variables, spawning the solver as a process, and at the end
> > retrieving a file written by the solver.  As a result I believe that the
> > licening issues surrounding an AMPL-interfaced solver are completely
> > independent from the issues regarding the core AMPL program (which is not
> > open-source).  It would be interesting to hear other opinions on this,
> though.
> >
> > Bob Fourer
> > 4er at iems.northwestern.edu
> >
> >
> >> -----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: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 6:57 AM
> >> To: Discussions about open source software for Operations Research
> >> Subject: Re: [Coin-discuss] license issues
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Further to my earlier mail, I am wondering about IPOPT again. As I
> >> understand it you can't usefully emply IPOPT without one of Harwell,
> >> Pardiso or WSMP (just from my reading of the documentation, haven't
> >> drilled down any further than that at this stage). And apparently you
> >> also need AMPL Solver Library, although I'm not sure if that is required
> >> for compilation of the C++ interface, or only for building the AMPL
> >> plugin solver.
> >>
> >> If that is the case then it would seem that it's impossible to
> >> distribute binary versions of IPOPT anyway, right?
> >>
> >> If one were to attempt to use the IPOPT solver as part of a larger
> >> software system such as ASCEND (think of ASCEND as a GPL-licensed
> >> equivalent of AMPL), then it seems that a binary ASCEND distribution
> >> incorporating IPOPT is out of the question even without the issues of
> >> the CPL vs GPL.
> >>
> >> Does this sound right to you?
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> JP
> >>
> >> Ted Ralphs wrote:
> >>
> >>> As the chair of Foundation's legal affairs committee, I suppose I would
> >>> be remiss if I didn't weigh in. Sorry for any "information overload."
> >>> (Big Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV).
> >>>
> >>> First, I want to emphasize that in the arena of intellectual property
> >>> and software, there is very little case law to back up the various legal
> >>> opinions being espoused on the Web and elsewhere, so don't expect to
> >>> find "the right answer" to any of these sticky questions. About all you
> >>> can do is to form your own opinion either by reading the licenses and
> >>> trying to learn how IP law works yourself or by trying to ascertain what
> >>> the majority of people believe. For every legal opinion about open
> >>> source licenses, you can always find someone who will defend the exact
> >>> opposite opinion. For that reason, one needs to take into account the
> >>> possible political biases of various "authorities" on this subject.
> >>>
> >>> That said, there is always confusion about the "compatibility" of the
> >>> various licenses in common use. In the case of the GPL, I believe that
> >>> the Free Software Foundation's assessment of compatibility of the GPL
> >>> with other licenses has to do with the distribution of binaries, not
> >>> source. As Brady already pointed out, it is OK to distribute source
> >>> consisting of a combination of CPL and GPL code. However, you cannot
> >>> (according to the legal interpretation of the Free Software Foundation)
> >>> distribute a pre-compiled binary consisting of both CPL and GPL code.
> >>> (Note, however, that some would argue that the clauses in the GPL that
> >>> prevent such combination are not legally enforceable---this has yet to
> >>> be tested in court).
> >>>
> >>> As for why we chose the CPL and not the GPL, the answer to that question
> >>> is not very straightforward, but, as previously pointed out, a big
> >>> reason is that it is more friendly to commercial use. A lot of companies
> >>> will not touch GPL'd code with a ten-foot pole because it is not
> >>> possible to include GPL'd code in a proprietary product, whereas the CPL
> >>> makes this fairly easy. Since we generally want to encourage commercial
> >>> use of COIN software and since IBM, who contributed much of the initial
> >>> code in COIN, was already comfortable with it, we chose the CPL as our
> >>> recommended license. (Disclaimer: This is just my own interpretation of
> >>> Foundation policy).
> >>>
> >>> To clarify whether the CPL requires changes to the code to be released
> >>> open source, the CPL does require that "improvements" to CPL'd code be
> >>> contributed back to the owner of that code under the CPL if such
> >>> improvements are redistributed. However, the CPL allows for users to add
> >>> separate "modules" to CPL'd code that are under a different (possibly
> >>> proprietary) license. In other words, if one wanted to build a GUI
> >>> interface for CLP or even to add a new algorithm for solving LPs to it,
> >>> it would be OK to sell the resulting product commercially, even if the
> >>> additional module was not released under the CPL (or even not open
> >>> source). This is not allowed under the GPL. (Disclaimer: These opinions
> >>> are just my own interpretation).
> >>>
> >>> For a more in-depth analysis of several open source licenses (including
> >>> the CPL and GPL), Lawrence Rosen's book, "Open Source Licensing:
> >>> Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law," is recommended and
> >>> available on-line (in open source fashion):
> >>>
> >>> http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
> >>>
> >>> For IBMs interpretation of the CPL, see their FAQ here:
> >>>
> >>> http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
> >>>
> >>> I hope this helps clarify some things.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Ted
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Andreas Waechter wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Just a minor insignificant correction:  Ipopt was originally contributed
> >>>> by CMU, since it was written there.  However, since I then went to IBM,
> >>>> we decided to release it under a license that IBM would be happy with
> >>>> (and would allow me to keep working on it), and that was the CPL.
> >>>>
> >>>> Andreas
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Brady Hunsaker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'll try to help clarify some of the confusion about COIN-OR's license
> >>>>> policy.  I'm a member of the Strategic Leadership Board, so I feel
> >>>>> qualified for that.  As to the legal questions of license specifics,
> >>>>> I'll make a personal statement at the end.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> COIN-OR allows project contributors to choose any software license
> >>>>> that is approved by the Open Source Initiative.  Dual-licensing is
> >>>>> also allowed, and we currently have one case of a dual-license (user's
> >>>>> choice of CPL or GPL). Both the CPL and GPL are approved as
> >>>>> open-source licenses by the Open Source Initiative.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Most of the current code is licensed under the CPL, so we encourage
> >>>>> new project contributors to consider the CPL for compatibility.  This
> >>>>> is not required, however.  It is up to the project contributor.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IPOPT was originally contributed by IBM.  IBM chose to use the CPL for
> >>>>> all the open-source code it has contributed to COIN-OR.  I don't know
> >>>>> all the reasons for this, but here are a few points:
> >>>>> - IBM wrote the CPL to be exactly the way they want it.
> >>>>> - The CPL has clauses relating to patents; the GPLv2 does not.
> >>>>> - In my personal understanding, the CPL is closer to the LGPL,
> >>>>> allowing use as a library or separate module without the requirement
> >>>>> that other code have the same license.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I hope that clears up some of the main COIN-OR questions.  If not,
> >>>>> I'll be happy to try again.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As to the legal relationship of licenses, I can only speak for myself
> >>>>> (not for COIN-OR).  My understanding is similar to what Bill has
> >>>>> written below. IBM wanted to engage both research and industry
> >>>>> communities when it contributed IPOPT, and evidently believes that the
> >>>>> CPL is the best way to do that, despite the relative frequencies of
> >>>>> licenses in other projects.  The LGPL would be similar in some key
> >>>>> ways, but I believe IBM probably evaluated it and explicitly deciding
> >>>>> against it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Unfortunately it's not possible to release binary code that combines
> >>>>> code under the CPL and GPL or LGPL.  It is possible to release source
> >>>>> code that interoperates, but the user would always be required to
> >>>>> collect the two different codes and compile them locally.  For
> >>>>> example, some COIN-OR projects allow the user to link to code under
> >>>>> the GPL, such as gzip and bzip2 compression libraries.  This is not
> >>>>> enabled by default, and we do not expect to be able to distribute
> >>>>> binaries with this feature because of license incompatibilities.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Brady
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hart, William E wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 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
> >