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

[Ted Ralphs]

Somewhere, there's a misunderstanding. Are you saying that anyone can
redistribute CPL'd software under the GPL? This is not true. Only the
copyright holders can change the license. In source code form, you can
distribute a combination of GPL'd and CPL'd code, but the CPL'd code
remains under the CPL. You cannot distribute binaries derived from
combinations of the two. The CPL would allow this, but the GPL does not.

Cheers,

Ted

Alan King wrote:
> 
> CPL does not prevent anyone from bundling all of COIN and distributing
> it under GPL, so long as the disclaimers are present.  
> What is the problem?
> 
> Alan King
> Math Sciences
> IBM Thomas J Watson Research Center
> 914-945-1236
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/k/kingaj/
> 
> 
> *Ted Ralphs <ted at lehigh.edu>*
> Sent by: coin-discuss-bounces at list.coin-or.org
> 
> 04/11/2008 12:42 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	Soeren Sonnenburg <Soeren.Sonnenburg at first.fraunhofer.de>
> cc
> 	coin-discuss at list.coin-or.org
> Subject
> 	Re: [Coin-discuss] COIN-OR licences again...
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personal like/dislike of the FSF/GPL are not at all the reason for the
> improbability of adoption of a dual licensing scheme for COIN. For
> practical reasons, I personally would probably agree to dual license the
> software for which I am the copyright holder if others would follow
> suit. As far as the reasons why it is unlikely that other copyright
> holders would do this, I can only speculate, as many others have already
> done in this thread and others. Ultimately, someone within the
> organizations holding the copyrights has to champion this cause and even
> then, I would say the chances are very slim. As several have pointed
> out, if the GPL were an acceptable alternative to the parties concerned,
> why would the CPL exist in the first place? Food for thought...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ted
> 
> Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 11:31 -0400, Ted Ralphs wrote:
>>
>> Ted,
>>
>>> As a point of information relevant to this thread, there is an effort
>>> underway by members of the Technical Leadership Council and others to
>>> develop a set of RPM's and .debs for Linux that will include the vast
>>> majority of the projects. Of course, we will not be able to link with
>>> any third-party libraries that are GPL'd, but nevertheless, we have been
>>> able to build distributable binaries of most of the projects. I don't
>>> think the fact that the binaries will be under the CPL should impact
>>> most users that much, though clearly the license conflict is less than
>>> ideal. Stay tuned for more details.
>>
>> I agree, for pure users it does not matter, as they won't mess with the
>> code. In the case of COIN-OR it is different though, as it is made for
>> developers who like to use and extend the code...
>>
>>> As for the dual licensing idea, that has been discussed on and off for a
>>> long time and there is very little chance of it happening. However, we
>>
>> Could you give a reason why this is unlikely? That it has been discussed
>> a couple of times just underlines that there is a need to change
>> things...
>>
>>> will keep the conversation going. To date, there has not been universal
>>> agreement in the legal community that the clauses in the GPL that forbid
>>> dynamic linking are enforceable, but for now, we are not in a position
>>> to test those waters. Hopefully, someone will do so at some point and we
>>> will have a legitimate and dispassionate legal interpretation rather
>>> than the FSFs self-interested one.
>>
>> I would not want this to end up in a discussion whether the GPL valid,
>> good or bad. Lets simply accept (or tolerate) the FSF's position here
>> and find a solution with which everyone, IBM, COIN-OR developers and
>> (potential) COIN-OR users are happy.
>>
>>> One can argue that encouraging wider
>>> use of the GPL is not actually good for open source, but it is a
>>> practical reality that much of the world's OS software is GPL'd, so that
>>> is the reality we have to deal with. Thanks for your support!
>>
>> Well that does not really sound dispassionate. If the reason why dual
>> licensing is not an option is that there is a strong dislike against
>> any GPL compatible license from the people in charge here, then nothing
>> will change. If the aim is to see coin-or projects widely used however
>> it is important to consider dual licensing with another more compatible
>> license. As I guess the goal for IBM to open sourcing this project was
>> so see it widely used and extended I would hope that a solution can be
>> found.
>>
>> Best,
>> Soeren
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Ted Ralphs
> Associate Professor
> Industrial and Systems Engineering
> Lehigh University
> (610)758-4784
> ted 'at' lehigh 'dot' edu
> coral.ie.lehigh.edu/~ted
> _______________________________________________
> Coin-discuss mailing list
> Coin-discuss at list.coin-or.org
> http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/coin-discuss
> 


-- 
Dr. Ted Ralphs
Associate Professor
Industrial and Systems Engineering
Lehigh University
(610)758-4784
ted 'at' lehigh 'dot' edu
coral.ie.lehigh.edu/~ted