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

Fri Apr 11 15:40:51 EDT 2008

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:28 -0400, Alan King wrote:
> 
> According to the CPL, anyone can redistribute the software under any
> kind of license, provided the terms of the CPL are met.  These are:
> the disclaimers, and where to get the source code if it is not
> included in the bundle. 

This would be too good to be true.

> Again -- what is the problem? 

I am no lawyer, but isn't #12 of
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html

what we are talking about?

On the other hand reading

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CommonPublicLicense10

it might be that this is all just outdated information... I am going to
write to licensing at fsf.org ... lets see what they say.

Soeren

> Alan 
> 
> Alan King
> Math Sciences
> IBM Thomas J Watson Research Center
> 914-945-1236
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/k/kingaj/ 
> 
> 
> Soeren Sonnenburg
> <Soeren.Sonnenburg at first.fraunhofer.de> 
> 
> 04/11/2008 02:08 PM 
> 
> 
>                To
> Ted Ralphs
> <ted at lehigh.edu> 
>                cc
> Alan
> King/Watson/IBM at IBMUS, coin-discuss at list.coin-or.org 
>           Subject
> Re:
> [Coin-discuss]
> COIN-OR licences
> again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there must be some misunderstanding. I am bringing up this
> discussion because the only ways to combine (and redistribute) GPL'd
> and
> CPL'd code is to 
> 
> a) get the copyright holders of the GPL'd code to add an explicit
> exception that it is OK to link with the project using CPL'd code
> 
> and 
> 
> b) get the copyright holders of the CPL'd code to dual license to a
> GPL
> compatible license
> 
> Soeren
> 
> On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 13:14 -0400, Ted Ralphs wrote:
> > 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
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> -- 
> Soeren Sonnenburg - Fraunhofer FIRST      Tel: +49 (30) 6392 1882
> Kekulestr. 7, 12489 Berlin, Germany       Fax: +49 (30) 6392 1805
> 
-- 
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/20080411/b8cda5ba/attachment.sig>