[Coin-discuss] license issues
Matthew Saltzman
mjs at ces.clemson.edu
Sat Sep 23 14:08:52 EDT 2006
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, John Pye wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I came across this as another example of CPL-GPL incompatibility stymying the
> progress of open source projects.
> http://djvulibre.djvuzone.org/gsdjvu.html
It is clear enough to me that the only concern of the GSDjVu folks that is
an issue is the one that prevents distribution of the combined binary.
There is nothing in either license that prevents a user from downloading
the two pieces and building his own binary. One just can't pass it on.
>
> I wonder if the best thing is to just ignore the incompatibility? I wonder
> what the consequence of that would be? Can anyone hazard a guess?
The first step in pursuing copyright violations is usually a nasty letter
from a laywer demanding that the violator cease and desist. I suppose
that would mean that you would have to stop distributing the offending
binary and inform redistributors that they would have to stop as well.
In my reading, the most common case involves a complaint by an author that
his code has been redistributed by someone else in violation of his
license. If you own the GPL'd part of the code, I'd think this would be a
low-risk proposition 8^). (Redistributors who pay attention to the
license terms might choose to avoid redistributing the combined package.)
If you own the GPL'd code, I suppose you could also add a license
exception that explicitly permits this sort of redistribution. The
copyright principle gives the owner the right to set pretty much any
conditions on distribution, subject to the doctrine of fair use.
For COIN-OR's part, we would expect you to comply with the terms of the
CPL. In particular, we would expect that you not redistribute CPL'd
COIN-OR code in any way that gives recipients the impression that it can
be redistributed under the terms of the GPL. I will say (not speaking for
COIN-OR) that it's not clear to me that the distribution of the linked
binary necessarily violates the CPL. License incompatibility need not be
a symmetric relation, though the practical result is no different becasue
of that.
And of course, I am not our IP lawyer, nor indeed any sort of lawyer at
all.
>
> Cheers
> JP
>
> Matthew Saltzman wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Robert Fourer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Probably was me. This is essentially the old form of the BSD license.
>> Berkeley has rescinded the advertising clause, which accounts for the
>> deprecation notice. The "New BSD License" is its replacement. The old
>> license was an approved OSS license. According to the FSF, the advertising
>> clause made the old BSD license incompatible with the GPL, but the New BSD
>> License is GPL-compatible.
>>
>> Many of the licenses are older than the OSI. The original BSD license goes
>> back to Berkeley Unix, e.g.. Some projects were re-released under slightly
>> modified licenses to comply with the OSI's definition. I think the
>> Berkeley update was in 1999, and I conjecture it was done for GPL
>> compatibility.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- 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
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
More information about the Coin-discuss
mailing list