[Os-project-managers] [Fwd: Re: CPL versus EPL]

[Kipp Martin]

Hi Guys:

I am just posting this to our project managers list so I can keep track 
of it.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: CPL versus EPL
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:35:24 -0500
From: Matthew Saltzman <mjs at clemson.edu>
Organization: Clemson University
To: Kipp Martin <kmartin at chicagobooth.edu>
CC: Horand Gassmann <Horand.Gassmann at Dal.Ca>,        hotmail - majxuh 
<majxuh at hotmail.com>
References: <4D1C3604.1010104 at chicagobooth.edu>

On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 21:34 -1000, Kipp Martin wrote:
> Hi Matt:
> 
> At our weekly OS meeting today, Jun, Gus, and I discussed switching OS 
> from CPL to EPL. A few questions regarding this:
> 
> 1) When I filled out my CSRO Chicago approved releasing OS under CPL 
> (likewise for Northwestern (Jun) and Halifax (Gus)). If we switch to EPL 
> do we need to fill out a new CSRO?

We're not asking people to do that.  The best way to think about EPL is
as CPL v2.0.  A clause in the CPL says that distributors can update to
new versions of the license at their option, so that's in essence what's
happening.

> 
> 2) What is the key difference between the two. I was under the 
> impression that  there was only one line that really distinguished the 
> two. Do you know what it is?

There are two differences:
      1. The "license steward" (the copyright holder on the license
         itself) changed from IBM to the Eclipse Foundation.  On balance,
         that doesn't have much effect.  It means if we have questions or
         issues, we approach the Eclipse Foundation's legal department
         rather than IBM's, which is probably a good thing.
      2. There are two "patent retaliation" clauses in Section 7 of the
         CPL.  One says that a recipient can't sue anyone over patent
         infringement in the covered code, or the recipient loses the
         license to the code.  The other says that a recipient can't sue
         a contributor (distributor) over any software patent, or the
         recipient loses the license to any of the contributor's patents
         in the covered code.  It's this second clause that is deleted in
         the EPL.  We don't claim any patents, so we wouldn't initiate a
         suit and we have no patent license to revoke if we are sued, so
         for us there is no effect.  IBM owns a patent on Vol, so they
         give up a little protection there.  If anyone using Vol sued IBM
         for any software patent infringement not related to Vol, they'd
         lose the right to use Vol under the CPL, but not under the EPL.
Everything else is identical between the two.

Matt

> 
> Thanks
> 
> 

-- 
                 Matthew Saltzman

Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs

-- 
Kipp Martin
Professor of Operations Research
and Computing Technology
Booth School of Business
University of Chicago
5807 South Woodlawn Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
773-702-7456
kmartin at chicagobooth.edu
http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/bio.aspx?person_id=12825325568
http://projects.coin-or.org/OS