[Coin-discuss] COIN-OR licences again...

Mon Apr 7 03:58:54 EDT 2008

On Sun, 2008-04-06 at 22:31 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-04-06 at 19:33 -0400, Alan King wrote:
> > 
> > I believe the CPL is compatible with the Debian Free Software
> > Guidelines.  See http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines.   
> > The numbering below is from DFSG 
> > 
> 
> CPL is also an Open Source license according to the criteria at
> http://www.opensource.org.  Those guidelines are based on the DFSG, so I
> think it is quite unlikely that a license that complies with one would
> not comply with the other.

I brought this up a while ago on debian-legal and well the tendency is
towards yes CPL is DFSG free
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg37367.html
but still it is not listed here http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses.

> >     1. CPL grants license to reproduce, distribute, sublicense, and
> > sell.  No royalties are required. 
> > 
> >     2. CPL permits redistribution of source code and object code,
> > provided the CPL license is included in source code and copyright
> > notices are not altered. 
> > 
> >     3. CPL permits modification and redistribution under CPL license.
> > It even allows redistribution under other licenses, provided those
> > licenses have appropriate disclaimers and states that recipients have
> > access to source code. 
> > 
> >     4. Integrity of derivative works is not required by CPL. 
> > 
> >     5-6. CPL grant is without restrictions. 
> > 
> >     7. The rights are granted no matter how the software is obtained. 
> > 
> >     8.  License is not specific to Debian. 
> > 
> >     9.  CPL does not contaminate other software (a question: GPL'd
> > software does not comply with this requirement...I suppose DFSG is a
> > work in progress). 

Debian seems to contain IBM-PL'ed code (e.g. postfix) and eclipse (CPL?)
so it seems possible - but I am still not happy (see below).

> > I also see no problem releasing COIN under GPL provided the provisions
> > 3.b(i-iv) in CPL are stated in the License somewhere.  But as I say, I

That seems to be the case for the GPL (see below)

> > don't think GPL meets the DFSG requirement #9. 
> 
> The heading of the corresponding requirement of the Open Source
> Definition is worded better, I think.  It states:
> 
>         9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
> 
> Compare with the DFSG version:
> 
>         9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
> 
> The explanatory text is identical in both versions:
> 
>         The license must not place restrictions on other software that
>         is distributed along with the licensed software. For example,
>         the license must not insist that all other programs distributed
>         on the same medium must be open-source software.
>         
> I believe the intent is not to prevent the GPL's "contamination" of
> other code in a derived work or "work as a whole", but to prevent the
> license of one distinct product from imposing requirements on other
> distinct products distributed on the same medium or from the same
> source.

I also think that this is the intention.

> >From my reading of the old discussion (circa GPL v2) on the FSF page,
> the patent protection clauses (perhaps including clause 3.b) are what
> made the CPL incompatible with the GPL v2.  The FSF said they didn't
> think the clause was a bad idea, but it was still incompatible.  

the mozilla public license has a similar clause btw...

> The new discussion (for GPL v3) says that the incompatibility still
> exists, but is now due to the "choice of law" clause.  I haven't
> identified the exact wording at issue.  The FSF also says that the CPL
> *is* a "free software license".  (See
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html.)

It definitely is, as are 70 other licences according to
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical.

> >  
> > Alan 
> 
> 
> As to Soeren's initial question, see below.
> 
> > Soeren Sonnenburg
> > <Soeren.Sonnenburg at first.fraunhofer.de> 
> > Sent by:
> > coin-discuss-bounces at list.coin-or.org 
> > 
> > 04/06/2008 05:56 PM 
> > 
> > 
> >                To
> > coin-discuss at list.coin-or.org 
> >                cc
> > 
> >           Subject
> > [Coin-discuss]
> > COIN-OR licences
> > again...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > I apologize for bringing up this discussion again, but is there any
> > chance that the COIN OR projects under is dual licensed under CPL
> > *and*
> > the GPL? (The CPL is GPL incompatible and thus COIN-OR with 90% of the
> > open source programs, not even *linking* to a CPL based library is
> > OK).
> > 
> > I am asking as I would love to see the COIN libraries to be more
> > widespread, i.e. 
> > 
> > a) I am interested in packaging some of the coin-or programs for
> > debian. For example I already packaged dsdp (as it is GPL). It is not
> > clear whether the CPL license is debian free software guidelinces
> > conform so I would very much like to see coin-or projects GPL dual
> > licensed... Note that debian based distributions have the biggest
> > market
> > share among the linux distributions - so coin-or could be
> > pre-installed
> > and may actually be used by a larger audience.
> > 
> > b) I personally am looking for a free linear optimizer (like Clp) or
> > even the Open Solver Interface (OSI) to be used in my shogun toolbox
> > (www.shogun-toolbox.org) to at some point get rid of a cplex
> > dependency.
> > I know I could use glpk or lpsolve but as COIN is widely known in the
> > OR
> > community I would prefer seeing its projects to be dual licensed. And
> > OSI is a great idea, but what does it help if you are not allowed to
> > use
> > it in an open source project due to licensing conflicts?
> 
> Given the above, what is the issue you have with the CPL?

The issue to me is that I and the majority of other opensource projects
cannot easily build upon CPL based work. The only workaround is that
projects that would want to use COIN-OR need to go through a license
change - which we all know is not so easy. As a result coin-or is not as
widespread as it could be and its use is limited :( The best example is
the Open Solver Interface. It is part of COIN-OR and definitely
something people should use as it nicely interfaces to commercial as
well as free solvers. 

I would like to bring COIN-OR to debian, but my motivation to do so is
that I can use it in my software projects (e.g. shogun) and that it will
be useful for many other people too (scientific software is still rarely
used in debian from what I can tell - so extra limitations won't give us
more users, see e.g. http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=glpk,
http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=cvxopt or
http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=lp-solve ).

> It's true that there are some restrictions we have to live with.  For
> example, we can't distribute binaries linked with GNU readline or GLPK.
> The onus is on the recipients of the code to build such binaries if they
> want those features.

No-one not just coin-or people can distribute binaries mixing GPL and
CPL that is the issue.

> The discussions on the COIN-OR board related to dual licensing are
> continuing, but given Alan's comment about clause 3.b, I'm not sure what
> progress we could make with IBM (who owns the code contributed by
> members of its staff).

I don't see the problem in 3.b:
A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form
under its own license agreement, provided that:

             I. effectively disclaims on behalf of all Contributors all
                warranties and conditions, express and implied,
                including warranties or conditions of title and
                non-infringement, and implied warranties or conditions
                of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose;
            II. effectively excludes on behalf of all Contributors all
                liability for damages, including direct, indirect,
                special, incidental and consequential damages, such as
                lost profits; 
           III. states that any provisions which differ from this
                Agreement are offered by that Contributor alone and not
                by any other party; and
            IV. states that source code for the Program is available
                from such Contributor, and informs licensees how to
                obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium
                customarily used for software exchange.

GPL3 says:

regarding 3b) I.:

  15. Disclaimer of Warranty.

  THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
APPLICABLE LAW.  EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY
OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.  THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM
IS WITH YOU.  SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF
ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

regarding 3b) II.:
  16. Limitation of Liability.

  IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS
THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE
USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF
DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD
PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS),
EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES.

no idea about III)

IV): Alreade the preample says:

  For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received.  You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code.  And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights.

> As for linking with your own code, if you control the license, you could
> consider an exception to the GPL along the lines of the MySQL one
> (http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html), which
> would allow distributing binaries linking your code to CPL code.  That
> exception was created so that the GPL version of MySQL libraries could
> still be linked to PHP.

Yes true, but if your project has multiple authors/copyright holders
then this can be again troublesome.

> > Please note that it is in any case not a good idea to use a GPL
> > incompatible license (see e.g.
> > http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html)
> > After all most of the projects are GPL and a further incompatibility
> > between open source licenses does not really help...
> > Maybe this was one of the reasons why firefox etc are now dual
> > licensed
> > under GPL/LGPL/MPL... I understand that IBM started this project and
> > some people simply did not like the GPL and *intentionally* choose the
> > CPL. The community just suffers from conflicting licenses so I hope we
> > can overcome this...
> 
> The reasons that some people don't want to use or create GPL code
> involve more or less legitimate concerns on their part.  I can't speak
> for IBM, for sure, but it's clear to me that they developed the CPL at
> least in part because they were concerned about patent protection that
> wasn't part of the GPL v2.  

I guess the MPL was developed for a similar reason...

> The most common concern with the GPL is the requirement that the "work
> as a whole" be licensed under the GPL if any part is, even if that part
> is only linked through a clean, well-defined interface.  That makes
> creation of all kinds of interesting combinations of tools impossible to
> distribute in ready-to-use form, as you are aware.

Yes. Choice of license  really is about how one wants to see a program
used/distributed. BSD would potentially achieve the most widespread use
without necessarily getting contributions back, LGPL/MPL/CPL gets you
changes contributed back and well GPL ensures that any agglomerate work
will be open too...

The idea of open source is all great but with the license proliferation
and all the potential conflicts between licenses we loose many benefits
(there is an attempt to fix this, see
http://www.opensource.org/proliferation )

Soeren
-- 
Soeren Sonnenburg - Fraunhofer FIRST      Tel: +49 (30) 6392 1882
Kekulestr. 7, 12489 Berlin, Germany       Fax: +49 (30) 6392 1805
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://list.coin-or.org/pipermail/coin-discuss/attachments/20080407/1c088c43/attachment.sig>