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

[Leo Lopes]

I should add: the srpms are also distributed. So if you want to hack
files to add GPL stuff to your custom-built rpms, that isn't hard to
do. That is in fact what I do for my personal use. It is just that we
won't redistribute them and we kindly ask that you don't either.

Cheers,
Leo.

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Soeren Sonnenburg
<Soeren.Sonnenburg at first.fraunhofer.de> 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
>  --
>  Soeren Sonnenburg - Fraunhofer FIRST      Tel: +49 (30) 6392 1882
>  Kekulestr. 7, 12489 Berlin, Germany       Fax: +49 (30) 6392 1805
>
> _______________________________________________
>  Coin-discuss mailing list
>  Coin-discuss at list.coin-or.org
>  http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/coin-discuss
>
>



-- 
========================================================================
Leonardo B. Lopes
Assistant Professor SIE - University of Arizona
(520)621-2342
leo at sie.arizona.edu
http://www.sie.arizona.edu/faculty/leolopes