Home » Eclipse Projects » Technology Project and PMC » CPL FAQ available at IBM web site
| |
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #4786 is a reply to message #4717] |
Wed, 10 July 2002 05:48   |
 Colin Sharples
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Bob Foster wrote:
> Thanks Adrian.
>
> Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download the source
> code for WSAD?
WSAD is not distributed under the CPL. If you look in your WSAD install,
you will see that the org.eclipse.* plugins contain source code, as the
CPL requires. It's just the com.ibm.* plugins that don't have source.
(This is a personal opinion, though, not the official opinion of IBM or
of IBM's lawyers. YMMV)
--
Colin M Sharples/New Zealand/IBM, IT Architect, IBM Global Services
sharples@nz.ibm.com, t: 64-4-5769853, m: 64-21-402085, f: 64-4-5765616
"Sometimes I think the surest sign intelligent life exists
elsewhere in the Universe is that it's never tried to contact us"
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #4989 is a reply to message #4717] |
Wed, 10 July 2002 15:18 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: peter_burka.oti.com
"Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
news:aggc5o$hvf$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Thanks Adrian.
>
> Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download the source
> code for WSAD?
>
FAQ 19: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the CPL and
distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the Program,
must I make the source code to my module available in accordance with the
terms of the CPL?
No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program.
--
Peter Burka
Object Technology International, Inc.
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #5058 is a reply to message #4647] |
Wed, 10 July 2002 17:31 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: dominic.nospam.com
Ami wrong or the CPL is as viral as GPL ! For example no one can take the
CPL code and use it as a library because that would be considered derivative
! ByBy Swt !
"Adrian Cho" <adrian_cho@oti.com> wrote in message
news:agg2re$esi$1@rogue.oti.com...
> IBM has posted a CPL FAQ at this location:
>
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
>
> Note that this is an FAQ about the CPL and does not answer general legal
> questions such as "what is a derivative work?"
>
> If you have any questions about the CPL specifically or about the CPL FAQ
> then they are best directed to IBM as described in the FAQ.
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #5331 is a reply to message #5058] |
Wed, 10 July 2002 21:13 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: peter_burka.oti.com
"dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aghpll$d9v$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Ami wrong or the CPL is as viral as GPL ! For example no one can take the
> CPL code and use it as a library because that would be considered
derivative
> ! ByBy Swt !
>
Dominic,
(Usual disclaimer -- I'm not a lawyer and I've never played one on TV)
IIRC, the GPL has language in it which explicitly covers this situation.
That is, it says that if you link to a GPLed library then your program must
also be GPLed.
The CPL doesn't have language like this. It's my understanding that just
using the public APIs doesn't make your code a derivative work. But if you
modified SWT (e.g. ported it to a new platform), the modified version would
be a derivative work.
The other thing to consider is the intention of the drafters. Clearly IBM
does not want to open source all of its products. And IBM ships programs
which use Eclipse (WSAD) and SWT (J9's AWT implementation). And IBM wrote
the CPL. Admittedly IBM is a large organization and the left hand doesn't
always know what the right hand is doing, but I think that this is a pretty
clear indication that IBM's lawyers (who wrote the CPL!) think that it's all
right to ship proprietary products which use CPL'ed code.
/peter
--
Peter Burka
Object Technology International, Inc.
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #5384 is a reply to message #5331] |
Wed, 10 July 2002 22:09 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: dominic.nospam.com
> (Usual disclaimer -- I'm not a lawyer and I've never played one on TV)
me neither !
>
> IIRC, the GPL has language in it which explicitly covers this situation.
> That is, it says that if you link to a GPLed library then your program
must
> also be GPLed.
Here from thelicense itself.
"Contributions do not include additions to the Program which: (i) are
separate modules of software distributed in conjunction with the Program
under their own license agreement, and (ii) are not derivative works of the
Program."
How can my program be a separate module if i am linking with swt ? Take the
example of someone who compiles swt and use it as a stand alone library. I
can understand it makes sense to contribute the modifications (ala LGPL) to
the community but what about the code using the library ? What is stopping
them from releasing swt to LGPL ?
>
> The CPL doesn't have language like this. It's my understanding that just
> using the public APIs doesn't make your code a derivative work. But if you
> modified SWT (e.g. ported it to a new platform), the modified version
would
> be a derivative work.
The language is there it is just formulated differently ! The nice thing
they have done (this reminds of some dictatorship countries) is to tell what
is *permissble* ! so everything else is not permissible. I like the GPL way
of at least telling me what is not permissible.
>
> The other thing to consider is the intention of the drafters. Clearly IBM
> does not want to open source all of its products. And IBM ships programs
> which use Eclipse (WSAD) and SWT (J9's AWT implementation). And IBM wrote
> the CPL. Admittedly IBM is a large organization and the left hand doesn't
> always know what the right hand is doing, but I think that this is a
pretty
> clear indication that IBM's lawyers (who wrote the CPL!) think that it's
all
> right to ship proprietary products which use CPL'ed code.
>
What do they care ? No one is going to sue them for using their own code. As
for contributors they made sure plugin developers are satisfied. What they
failed to address is the other millions of mind who would be stretching this
system to another limits. And that is my problem with this licence. For
example the swt toolkit could be a separate beast by itslef.
The way it is we will just have to wait until they show up at our door or
avoid this altogether. I wish somone makes them undestand that there is a
lot of demand for a LGPL like toolkit that ppl could redistribute. If not
please make it clear that swt can be used as such. Because right now it is
very confusing.
thanks for your comment.
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #6335 is a reply to message #5058] |
Wed, 10 July 2002 22:23 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: adrian_cho.oti.com
Hi Dominic
The question of what is and is not a derivative work has been raised here
before and it is not something that anyone is likely to answer for you
because it is a general legal question which is subject to intepretation and
for which there are to my knowledge (and I am not a laywer), no clear legal
precedents.
What you may wish to consider is that there are lots of companies that are
basing their work on Eclipse and they do not consider their work to be a
derivative work of Eclipse just because it interfaces to Eclipse through
published APIs or even if their code is included in the same download along
with Eclipse code. Eclipse itself interfaces to many third-party components
and is also delivered with many of those components (e.g. Ant, XML4J,
Tomcat, etc.). The Eclipse legal documentation such as the "about.html"
notices, makes it very clear which portions of the software are obtained
from third-parties and licensed under other licenses. That said, whether or
not you can do this may depend on the compatibility of the licenses. Some
licenses may be written or interpreted in such a way that makes it hard to
do this. That also is subject to interpretation although sometimes it's
plainly obvious.
To my knowledge, the CPL does not contain any wording specifically relating
to the use of the "Program" as a library or not. Sometimes licenses that
try to address these or other issues (e.g use of header file content or
dynamic vs static linking) specifically, end up causing more confusion.
Adrian Cho
Object Technology International, Inc.
"dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aghpll$d9v$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Ami wrong or the CPL is as viral as GPL ! For example no one can take the
> CPL code and use it as a library because that would be considered
derivative
> ! ByBy Swt !
>
> "Adrian Cho" <adrian_cho@oti.com> wrote in message
> news:agg2re$esi$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > IBM has posted a CPL FAQ at this location:
> >
> > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
> >
> > Note that this is an FAQ about the CPL and does not answer general legal
> > questions such as "what is a derivative work?"
> >
> > If you have any questions about the CPL specifically or about the CPL
FAQ
> > then they are best directed to IBM as described in the FAQ.
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #6375 is a reply to message #5384] |
Wed, 10 July 2002 22:46 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: adrian_cho.oti.com
Hi Dominic
This newsgroup is not really a suitable forum to discuss the legal issues of
LGPL vs CPL. Read my other post that I believe partially answers your
questions. As I said in that post, there are no words to my knowledge in
the CPL that imply whether something is a separate module (or not) due to
linking. Therefore you should be asking yourself the question: "if I link
my program with SWT why shouldn't my program be considered a separate
module". It seems to me that you are trying to apply what the LGPL has
taught you, to the CPL.
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying below but I believe the
CPL is quite clear as to how you may relicense code you receive under the
CPL.
If someone is able under the terms of the CPL to relicense SWT or any code
based on SWT under another license, it doesn't change the fact that they
(and everyone else) still received it under the CPL.
If IBM is using SWT, they are not just using their "own code" because SWT
like many other parts of Eclipse now contains contributions from other
parties so it is no longer just IBM code. That's why you will see copyright
statements in Eclipse code other people and other companies and from "IBM
and others".
Adrian
> How can my program be a separate module if i am linking with swt ? Take
the
> example of someone who compiles swt and use it as a stand alone library. I
> can understand it makes sense to contribute the modifications (ala LGPL)
to
> the community but what about the code using the library ? What is stopping
> them from releasing swt to LGPL ?
>
> >
> > The CPL doesn't have language like this. It's my understanding that just
> > using the public APIs doesn't make your code a derivative work. But if
you
> > modified SWT (e.g. ported it to a new platform), the modified version
> would
> > be a derivative work.
>
> The language is there it is just formulated differently ! The nice thing
> they have done (this reminds of some dictatorship countries) is to tell
what
> is *permissble* ! so everything else is not permissible. I like the GPL
way
> of at least telling me what is not permissible.
>
> >
> > The other thing to consider is the intention of the drafters. Clearly
IBM
> > does not want to open source all of its products. And IBM ships programs
> > which use Eclipse (WSAD) and SWT (J9's AWT implementation). And IBM
wrote
> > the CPL. Admittedly IBM is a large organization and the left hand
doesn't
> > always know what the right hand is doing, but I think that this is a
> pretty
> > clear indication that IBM's lawyers (who wrote the CPL!) think that it's
> all
> > right to ship proprietary products which use CPL'ed code.
> >
>
> What do they care ? No one is going to sue them for using their own code.
As
> for contributors they made sure plugin developers are satisfied. What they
> failed to address is the other millions of mind who would be stretching
this
> system to another limits. And that is my problem with this licence. For
> example the swt toolkit could be a separate beast by itslef.
>
> The way it is we will just have to wait until they show up at our door or
> avoid this altogether. I wish somone makes them undestand that there is a
> lot of demand for a LGPL like toolkit that ppl could redistribute. If not
> please make it clear that swt can be used as such. Because right now it is
> very confusing.
>
> thanks for your comment.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #6489 is a reply to message #4989] |
Thu, 11 July 2002 06:25 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
"Peter Burka" <peter_burka@oti.com> wrote in message
news:aghhno$8i4$1@rogue.oti.com...
> "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download the
source
> > code for WSAD?
> FAQ 19: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the CPL and
> distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
Program,
> must I make the source code to my module available in accordance with the
> terms of the CPL?
>
> No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program.
> Peter Burka
Thanks, Peter. I understand what you and your co-workers are trying to tell
me - that there is no issue here. The definition of 'derivative work'
remains a sticking point, as Adrian anticipated.
I have provided feedback to the FAQ writers. Hopefully, I'll get some
response.
Bob
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #6564 is a reply to message #5058] |
Thu, 11 July 2002 07:27 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
Thanks dominic. My sentiments exactly!
Since I raised this issue, I've gotten all kinds of feedback that there is
really no problem here. It's obvious the people who work on Eclipse are
aghast at the notion that all their work to make Eclipse a foundation for
third party applications might be undermined by some weasel-words in the
CPL.
I personally (not a lawyer, no warranty) think 'derivative works' as used in
the CPL does not include simply packaging your software with CPL'd software.
It means that your software really has a piece of CPL'd software in it,
i.e., you borrowed some source code.
I've several times gotten the message, most recently in this thread from
Adrian, that even though IBM was the original Contributor they have to play
by the same rules as everyone else. They ship WSAD - which you'll have to
agree is pretty darn 'derivative' of Eclipse - under their own license with
no source code. If WSAD isn't a derivative work you should be able to ship
DominicDeveloper under your own license with no worries.
But it's prudent to be very careful about borrowed Eclipse source code. You
should put all this stuff into a separate module that can be CPL'd. And
respect the rule that if you ship parts of Eclipse as part of your software,
_you_ are responsible for providing the source code for those parts, not
eclipse.org.
(As to example code that is CPL'd, I say screw it. Anyone with half a brain
would know example code would be cut-'n' pasted. I don't believe Eclipse is
some kind of honey trap, therefore I don't believe this is an issue.)
Bob
"dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aghpll$d9v$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Ami wrong or the CPL is as viral as GPL ! For example no one can take the
> CPL code and use it as a library because that would be considered
derivative
> ! ByBy Swt !
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #8020 is a reply to message #6489] |
Fri, 12 July 2002 21:11 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: adrian_cho.oti.com
FYI Bob, I have spoken to both the authors of the CPL FAQ and the folks that
worked with developerWorks to have it posted. They have not yet seen your
feedback yet but it could still be in the developerWorks queue. We want to
make sure your feedback is handled so if you do not get a response soon,
please post here and I will look into it ASAP.
Also FYI, the Eclipse Legal FAQ is being finalised and reviewed and I hope
to have it posted soon. It deals with more Eclipse-specific legal things
such as the Eclipse.org Software User Agreement, and so forth. Hopefully it
will further assist you and others with navigating the legal waters.
Adrian
"Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
news:agj6dd$ufi$1@rogue.oti.com...
> "Peter Burka" <peter_burka@oti.com> wrote in message
> news:aghhno$8i4$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download the
> source
> > > code for WSAD?
> > FAQ 19: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the CPL
and
> > distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
> Program,
> > must I make the source code to my module available in accordance with
the
> > terms of the CPL?
> >
> > No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program.
> > Peter Burka
>
> Thanks, Peter. I understand what you and your co-workers are trying to
tell
> me - that there is no issue here. The definition of 'derivative work'
> remains a sticking point, as Adrian anticipated.
>
> I have provided feedback to the FAQ writers. Hopefully, I'll get some
> response.
>
> Bob
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #8052 is a reply to message #8020] |
Sat, 13 July 2002 03:36 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
Thanks, Adrian. It seemed a little strange to post such a question to the
webmaster. Here is what I asked:
----------------
I have two questions:
1. Para 15 of the FAQ says "The object code for the product may be
distributed under a single license as long as it references the CPL portion
and complies, for that portion, with the terms of the CPL".
Since IBM's WSAD does just that, I looked to the WSAD license as a model for
such a reference. But it contains no mention of Eclipse, per se, and no
mention of the CPL. Is WSAD in violation of the CPL?
2. "Derived works" seems to be a term of art for which there is no generally
accepted definition. Here are three definitions that seem to be implied by
existing open source licenses:
a. Works that use the Program, in source or object form, in any way (GPL)
b. Works that use the Program and do essentially the same thing as the
Program (SPL)
c. Works that incorporate source code from the Program (CPL?).
From the FAQ answers, the authors of the CPL apparently intend a narrow
construction like (c). If either of the other two were used, then surely
WSAD would be a derived work and would have to license its source code with
the CPL. Could you please clarify the meaning of "derived works"?
Thanks.
Bob Foster
bob@objfac.com
"Adrian Cho" <adrian_cho@oti.com> wrote in message
news:agneuk$7c0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> FYI Bob, I have spoken to both the authors of the CPL FAQ and the folks
that
> worked with developerWorks to have it posted. They have not yet seen your
> feedback yet but it could still be in the developerWorks queue. We want
to
> make sure your feedback is handled so if you do not get a response soon,
> please post here and I will look into it ASAP.
>
> Also FYI, the Eclipse Legal FAQ is being finalised and reviewed and I hope
> to have it posted soon. It deals with more Eclipse-specific legal things
> such as the Eclipse.org Software User Agreement, and so forth. Hopefully
it
> will further assist you and others with navigating the legal waters.
>
> Adrian
>
> "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> news:agj6dd$ufi$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > "Peter Burka" <peter_burka@oti.com> wrote in message
> > news:aghhno$8i4$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > > Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download the
> > source
> > > > code for WSAD?
> > > FAQ 19: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the CPL
> and
> > > distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
> > Program,
> > > must I make the source code to my module available in accordance with
> the
> > > terms of the CPL?
> > >
> > > No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program.
> > > Peter Burka
> >
> > Thanks, Peter. I understand what you and your co-workers are trying to
> tell
> > me - that there is no issue here. The definition of 'derivative work'
> > remains a sticking point, as Adrian anticipated.
> >
> > I have provided feedback to the FAQ writers. Hopefully, I'll get some
> > response.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #8083 is a reply to message #8052] |
Sat, 13 July 2002 03:46 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
Sorry about the spacing. I pasted from Word. Shame on me.
Bob
"Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
news:ago55e$drk$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Thanks, Adrian. It seemed a little strange to post such a question to the
> webmaster. Here is what I asked:
> ----------------
> I have two questions:
>
>
>
> 1. Para 15 of the FAQ says "The object code for the product may be
> distributed under a single license as long as it references the CPL
portion
> and complies, for that portion, with the terms of the CPL".
>
>
>
> Since IBM's WSAD does just that, I looked to the WSAD license as a model
for
> such a reference. But it contains no mention of Eclipse, per se, and no
> mention of the CPL. Is WSAD in violation of the CPL?
>
>
>
> 2. "Derived works" seems to be a term of art for which there is no
generally
> accepted definition. Here are three definitions that seem to be implied by
> existing open source licenses:
>
>
>
> a. Works that use the Program, in source or object form, in any way (GPL)
>
> b. Works that use the Program and do essentially the same thing as the
> Program (SPL)
>
> c. Works that incorporate source code from the Program (CPL?).
>
>
>
> From the FAQ answers, the authors of the CPL apparently intend a narrow
> construction like (c). If either of the other two were used, then surely
> WSAD would be a derived work and would have to license its source code
with
> the CPL. Could you please clarify the meaning of "derived works"?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Bob Foster
>
> bob@objfac.com
>
>
>
> "Adrian Cho" <adrian_cho@oti.com> wrote in message
> news:agneuk$7c0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > FYI Bob, I have spoken to both the authors of the CPL FAQ and the folks
> that
> > worked with developerWorks to have it posted. They have not yet seen
your
> > feedback yet but it could still be in the developerWorks queue. We want
> to
> > make sure your feedback is handled so if you do not get a response soon,
> > please post here and I will look into it ASAP.
> >
> > Also FYI, the Eclipse Legal FAQ is being finalised and reviewed and I
hope
> > to have it posted soon. It deals with more Eclipse-specific legal
things
> > such as the Eclipse.org Software User Agreement, and so forth.
Hopefully
> it
> > will further assist you and others with navigating the legal waters.
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > news:agj6dd$ufi$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > "Peter Burka" <peter_burka@oti.com> wrote in message
> > > news:aghhno$8i4$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > > > Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download the
> > > source
> > > > > code for WSAD?
> > > > FAQ 19: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the
CPL
> > and
> > > > distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
> > > Program,
> > > > must I make the source code to my module available in accordance
with
> > the
> > > > terms of the CPL?
> > > >
> > > > No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program.
> > > > Peter Burka
> > >
> > > Thanks, Peter. I understand what you and your co-workers are trying to
> > tell
> > > me - that there is no issue here. The definition of 'derivative work'
> > > remains a sticking point, as Adrian anticipated.
> > >
> > > I have provided feedback to the FAQ writers. Hopefully, I'll get some
> > > response.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #8368 is a reply to message #8083] |
Mon, 15 July 2002 06:54 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: adrian_cho.oti.com
No problem. Shame on Bill Gates. <G>
I have passed your questions directly to the CPL FAQ authors. This is also
a good test to see whether the developerWorks feedback mechanism really
works.
Thanks
Adrian
"Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
news:ago5pr$e1f$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Sorry about the spacing. I pasted from Word. Shame on me.
>
> Bob
>
> "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> news:ago55e$drk$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > Thanks, Adrian. It seemed a little strange to post such a question to
the
> > webmaster. Here is what I asked:
> > ----------------
> > I have two questions:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Para 15 of the FAQ says "The object code for the product may be
> > distributed under a single license as long as it references the CPL
> portion
> > and complies, for that portion, with the terms of the CPL".
> >
> >
> >
> > Since IBM's WSAD does just that, I looked to the WSAD license as a model
> for
> > such a reference. But it contains no mention of Eclipse, per se, and no
> > mention of the CPL. Is WSAD in violation of the CPL?
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. "Derived works" seems to be a term of art for which there is no
> generally
> > accepted definition. Here are three definitions that seem to be implied
by
> > existing open source licenses:
> >
> >
> >
> > a. Works that use the Program, in source or object form, in any way
(GPL)
> >
> > b. Works that use the Program and do essentially the same thing as the
> > Program (SPL)
> >
> > c. Works that incorporate source code from the Program (CPL?).
> >
> >
> >
> > From the FAQ answers, the authors of the CPL apparently intend a narrow
> > construction like (c). If either of the other two were used, then surely
> > WSAD would be a derived work and would have to license its source code
> with
> > the CPL. Could you please clarify the meaning of "derived works"?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob Foster
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #8573 is a reply to message #8052] |
Tue, 16 July 2002 18:18 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: adrian_cho.oti.com
Bob
I believe that IBM will be changing the feedback mechanism for CPL FAQ to
opensrc@us.ibm.com to ensure better response. Thanks for testing the other
mechanism for us <G>.
On your question about WSAD, I just wanted to note two things:
Firstly, I have said in the past that IBM has to play on the field like
anyone else (WRT CPL and using Eclipse) - I did not lie. That is IBM's
intention but it is also true that at least for Eclipse 1.0 which was frozen
prior to the open source launch last November, that since it is all 100% IBM
code, IBM could theoretically license in any other manner. This could not
be the case for products based on Eclipse 2.0 though since that code quite
possibly includes third-party contributions.
Secondly, I can't speak specifically for WSAD but I should just mention that
under section 3 of the CPL, if you redistribute in object code form (under
its own license), there is no requirement to mention or include the CPL.
You do have to meet all the conditions listed in the first part of section 3
including that you have to state that source code is available for the
portions you obtained under the CPL and you then have to point people to the
code.
I don't know which of these applies to the WSAD license case - I'm just
pointing out that both are possibilities and the second point certainly
applies to you or anyone else.
Adrian
"Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
news:ago55e$drk$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Thanks, Adrian. It seemed a little strange to post such a question to the
> webmaster. Here is what I asked:
> ----------------
> I have two questions:
>
>
>
> 1. Para 15 of the FAQ says "The object code for the product may be
> distributed under a single license as long as it references the CPL
portion
> and complies, for that portion, with the terms of the CPL".
>
>
>
> Since IBM's WSAD does just that, I looked to the WSAD license as a model
for
> such a reference. But it contains no mention of Eclipse, per se, and no
> mention of the CPL. Is WSAD in violation of the CPL?
>
>
>
> 2. "Derived works" seems to be a term of art for which there is no
generally
> accepted definition. Here are three definitions that seem to be implied by
> existing open source licenses:
>
>
>
> a. Works that use the Program, in source or object form, in any way (GPL)
>
> b. Works that use the Program and do essentially the same thing as the
> Program (SPL)
>
> c. Works that incorporate source code from the Program (CPL?).
>
>
>
> From the FAQ answers, the authors of the CPL apparently intend a narrow
> construction like (c). If either of the other two were used, then surely
> WSAD would be a derived work and would have to license its source code
with
> the CPL. Could you please clarify the meaning of "derived works"?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Bob Foster
>
> bob@objfac.com
>
>
>
> "Adrian Cho" <adrian_cho@oti.com> wrote in message
> news:agneuk$7c0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > FYI Bob, I have spoken to both the authors of the CPL FAQ and the folks
> that
> > worked with developerWorks to have it posted. They have not yet seen
your
> > feedback yet but it could still be in the developerWorks queue. We want
> to
> > make sure your feedback is handled so if you do not get a response soon,
> > please post here and I will look into it ASAP.
> >
> > Also FYI, the Eclipse Legal FAQ is being finalised and reviewed and I
hope
> > to have it posted soon. It deals with more Eclipse-specific legal
things
> > such as the Eclipse.org Software User Agreement, and so forth.
Hopefully
> it
> > will further assist you and others with navigating the legal waters.
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > news:agj6dd$ufi$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > "Peter Burka" <peter_burka@oti.com> wrote in message
> > > news:aghhno$8i4$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > > > Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download the
> > > source
> > > > > code for WSAD?
> > > > FAQ 19: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the
CPL
> > and
> > > > distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
> > > Program,
> > > > must I make the source code to my module available in accordance
with
> > the
> > > > terms of the CPL?
> > > >
> > > > No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program.
> > > > Peter Burka
> > >
> > > Thanks, Peter. I understand what you and your co-workers are trying to
> > tell
> > > me - that there is no issue here. The definition of 'derivative work'
> > > remains a sticking point, as Adrian anticipated.
> > >
> > > I have provided feedback to the FAQ writers. Hopefully, I'll get some
> > > response.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #9744 is a reply to message #8573] |
Tue, 16 July 2002 19:50 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
As always, I appreciate your helpful response. Should I re-send my questions
(esp. #2) or do they have enough copies now? ;-} Thanks!
Bob
"Adrian Cho" <adrian_cho@oti.com> wrote in message
news:ah1m7n$ad9$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Bob
>
> I believe that IBM will be changing the feedback mechanism for CPL FAQ to
> opensrc@us.ibm.com to ensure better response. Thanks for testing the
other
> mechanism for us <G>.
>
> On your question about WSAD, I just wanted to note two things:
>
> Firstly, I have said in the past that IBM has to play on the field like
> anyone else (WRT CPL and using Eclipse) - I did not lie. That is IBM's
> intention but it is also true that at least for Eclipse 1.0 which was
frozen
> prior to the open source launch last November, that since it is all 100%
IBM
> code, IBM could theoretically license in any other manner. This could not
> be the case for products based on Eclipse 2.0 though since that code quite
> possibly includes third-party contributions.
>
> Secondly, I can't speak specifically for WSAD but I should just mention
that
> under section 3 of the CPL, if you redistribute in object code form (under
> its own license), there is no requirement to mention or include the CPL.
> You do have to meet all the conditions listed in the first part of section
3
> including that you have to state that source code is available for the
> portions you obtained under the CPL and you then have to point people to
the
> code.
>
> I don't know which of these applies to the WSAD license case - I'm just
> pointing out that both are possibilities and the second point certainly
> applies to you or anyone else.
>
> Adrian
>
> "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> news:ago55e$drk$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > Thanks, Adrian. It seemed a little strange to post such a question to
the
> > webmaster. Here is what I asked:
> > ----------------
> > I have two questions:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Para 15 of the FAQ says "The object code for the product may be
> > distributed under a single license as long as it references the CPL
> portion
> > and complies, for that portion, with the terms of the CPL".
> >
> >
> >
> > Since IBM's WSAD does just that, I looked to the WSAD license as a model
> for
> > such a reference. But it contains no mention of Eclipse, per se, and no
> > mention of the CPL. Is WSAD in violation of the CPL?
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. "Derived works" seems to be a term of art for which there is no
> generally
> > accepted definition. Here are three definitions that seem to be implied
by
> > existing open source licenses:
> >
> >
> >
> > a. Works that use the Program, in source or object form, in any way
(GPL)
> >
> > b. Works that use the Program and do essentially the same thing as the
> > Program (SPL)
> >
> > c. Works that incorporate source code from the Program (CPL?).
> >
> >
> >
> > From the FAQ answers, the authors of the CPL apparently intend a narrow
> > construction like (c). If either of the other two were used, then surely
> > WSAD would be a derived work and would have to license its source code
> with
> > the CPL. Could you please clarify the meaning of "derived works"?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob Foster
> >
> > bob@objfac.com
> >
> >
> >
> > "Adrian Cho" <adrian_cho@oti.com> wrote in message
> > news:agneuk$7c0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > FYI Bob, I have spoken to both the authors of the CPL FAQ and the
folks
> > that
> > > worked with developerWorks to have it posted. They have not yet seen
> your
> > > feedback yet but it could still be in the developerWorks queue. We
want
> > to
> > > make sure your feedback is handled so if you do not get a response
soon,
> > > please post here and I will look into it ASAP.
> > >
> > > Also FYI, the Eclipse Legal FAQ is being finalised and reviewed and I
> hope
> > > to have it posted soon. It deals with more Eclipse-specific legal
> things
> > > such as the Eclipse.org Software User Agreement, and so forth.
> Hopefully
> > it
> > > will further assist you and others with navigating the legal waters.
> > >
> > > Adrian
> > >
> > > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:agj6dd$ufi$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > "Peter Burka" <peter_burka@oti.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:aghhno$8i4$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download
the
> > > > source
> > > > > > code for WSAD?
> > > > > FAQ 19: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the
> CPL
> > > and
> > > > > distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of
the
> > > > Program,
> > > > > must I make the source code to my module available in accordance
> with
> > > the
> > > > > terms of the CPL?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program.
> > > > > Peter Burka
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Peter. I understand what you and your co-workers are trying
to
> > > tell
> > > > me - that there is no issue here. The definition of 'derivative
work'
> > > > remains a sticking point, as Adrian anticipated.
> > > >
> > > > I have provided feedback to the FAQ writers. Hopefully, I'll get
some
> > > > response.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #9816 is a reply to message #9744] |
Wed, 17 July 2002 08:09 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: adrian_cho.oti.com
Since at least for this time I have routed the questions you posted here
directly to the FAQ authors, there is no need to resend them.
Adrian
"Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
news:ah1r9c$deu$1@rogue.oti.com...
> As always, I appreciate your helpful response. Should I re-send my
questions
> (esp. #2) or do they have enough copies now? ;-} Thanks!
|
|
| |
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #566963 is a reply to message #4717] |
Wed, 10 July 2002 05:48 |
Colin Sharples
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Bob Foster wrote:
> Thanks Adrian.
>
> Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download the source
> code for WSAD?
WSAD is not distributed under the CPL. If you look in your WSAD install,
you will see that the org.eclipse.* plugins contain source code, as the
CPL requires. It's just the com.ibm.* plugins that don't have source.
(This is a personal opinion, though, not the official opinion of IBM or
of IBM's lawyers. YMMV)
--
Colin M Sharples/New Zealand/IBM, IT Architect, IBM Global Services
sharples@nz.ibm.com, t: 64-4-5769853, m: 64-21-402085, f: 64-4-5765616
"Sometimes I think the surest sign intelligent life exists
elsewhere in the Universe is that it's never tried to contact us"
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #567231 is a reply to message #5058] |
Wed, 10 July 2002 22:23 |
Adrian Cho
Messages: 18
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi Dominic
The question of what is and is not a derivative work has been raised here
before and it is not something that anyone is likely to answer for you
because it is a general legal question which is subject to intepretation and
for which there are to my knowledge (and I am not a laywer), no clear legal
precedents.
What you may wish to consider is that there are lots of companies that are
basing their work on Eclipse and they do not consider their work to be a
derivative work of Eclipse just because it interfaces to Eclipse through
published APIs or even if their code is included in the same download along
with Eclipse code. Eclipse itself interfaces to many third-party components
and is also delivered with many of those components (e.g. Ant, XML4J,
Tomcat, etc.). The Eclipse legal documentation such as the "about.html"
notices, makes it very clear which portions of the software are obtained
from third-parties and licensed under other licenses. That said, whether or
not you can do this may depend on the compatibility of the licenses. Some
licenses may be written or interpreted in such a way that makes it hard to
do this. That also is subject to interpretation although sometimes it's
plainly obvious.
To my knowledge, the CPL does not contain any wording specifically relating
to the use of the "Program" as a library or not. Sometimes licenses that
try to address these or other issues (e.g use of header file content or
dynamic vs static linking) specifically, end up causing more confusion.
Adrian Cho
Object Technology International, Inc.
"dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aghpll$d9v$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Ami wrong or the CPL is as viral as GPL ! For example no one can take the
> CPL code and use it as a library because that would be considered
derivative
> ! ByBy Swt !
>
> "Adrian Cho" <adrian_cho@oti.com> wrote in message
> news:agg2re$esi$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > IBM has posted a CPL FAQ at this location:
> >
> > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
> >
> > Note that this is an FAQ about the CPL and does not answer general legal
> > questions such as "what is a derivative work?"
> >
> > If you have any questions about the CPL specifically or about the CPL
FAQ
> > then they are best directed to IBM as described in the FAQ.
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
| |
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #567459 is a reply to message #4989] |
Thu, 11 July 2002 06:25 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
"Peter Burka" <peter_burka@oti.com> wrote in message
news:aghhno$8i4$1@rogue.oti.com...
> "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download the
source
> > code for WSAD?
> FAQ 19: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the CPL and
> distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
Program,
> must I make the source code to my module available in accordance with the
> terms of the CPL?
>
> No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program.
> Peter Burka
Thanks, Peter. I understand what you and your co-workers are trying to tell
me - that there is no issue here. The definition of 'derivative work'
remains a sticking point, as Adrian anticipated.
I have provided feedback to the FAQ writers. Hopefully, I'll get some
response.
Bob
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #567582 is a reply to message #5058] |
Thu, 11 July 2002 07:27 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
Thanks dominic. My sentiments exactly!
Since I raised this issue, I've gotten all kinds of feedback that there is
really no problem here. It's obvious the people who work on Eclipse are
aghast at the notion that all their work to make Eclipse a foundation for
third party applications might be undermined by some weasel-words in the
CPL.
I personally (not a lawyer, no warranty) think 'derivative works' as used in
the CPL does not include simply packaging your software with CPL'd software.
It means that your software really has a piece of CPL'd software in it,
i.e., you borrowed some source code.
I've several times gotten the message, most recently in this thread from
Adrian, that even though IBM was the original Contributor they have to play
by the same rules as everyone else. They ship WSAD - which you'll have to
agree is pretty darn 'derivative' of Eclipse - under their own license with
no source code. If WSAD isn't a derivative work you should be able to ship
DominicDeveloper under your own license with no worries.
But it's prudent to be very careful about borrowed Eclipse source code. You
should put all this stuff into a separate module that can be CPL'd. And
respect the rule that if you ship parts of Eclipse as part of your software,
_you_ are responsible for providing the source code for those parts, not
eclipse.org.
(As to example code that is CPL'd, I say screw it. Anyone with half a brain
would know example code would be cut-'n' pasted. I don't believe Eclipse is
some kind of honey trap, therefore I don't believe this is an issue.)
Bob
"dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aghpll$d9v$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Ami wrong or the CPL is as viral as GPL ! For example no one can take the
> CPL code and use it as a library because that would be considered
derivative
> ! ByBy Swt !
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #567893 is a reply to message #6489] |
Fri, 12 July 2002 21:11 |
Adrian Cho
Messages: 18
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
FYI Bob, I have spoken to both the authors of the CPL FAQ and the folks that
worked with developerWorks to have it posted. They have not yet seen your
feedback yet but it could still be in the developerWorks queue. We want to
make sure your feedback is handled so if you do not get a response soon,
please post here and I will look into it ASAP.
Also FYI, the Eclipse Legal FAQ is being finalised and reviewed and I hope
to have it posted soon. It deals with more Eclipse-specific legal things
such as the Eclipse.org Software User Agreement, and so forth. Hopefully it
will further assist you and others with navigating the legal waters.
Adrian
"Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
news:agj6dd$ufi$1@rogue.oti.com...
> "Peter Burka" <peter_burka@oti.com> wrote in message
> news:aghhno$8i4$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download the
> source
> > > code for WSAD?
> > FAQ 19: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the CPL
and
> > distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
> Program,
> > must I make the source code to my module available in accordance with
the
> > terms of the CPL?
> >
> > No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program.
> > Peter Burka
>
> Thanks, Peter. I understand what you and your co-workers are trying to
tell
> me - that there is no issue here. The definition of 'derivative work'
> remains a sticking point, as Adrian anticipated.
>
> I have provided feedback to the FAQ writers. Hopefully, I'll get some
> response.
>
> Bob
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #567937 is a reply to message #8020] |
Sat, 13 July 2002 03:36 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
Thanks, Adrian. It seemed a little strange to post such a question to the
webmaster. Here is what I asked:
----------------
I have two questions:
1. Para 15 of the FAQ says "The object code for the product may be
distributed under a single license as long as it references the CPL portion
and complies, for that portion, with the terms of the CPL".
Since IBM's WSAD does just that, I looked to the WSAD license as a model for
such a reference. But it contains no mention of Eclipse, per se, and no
mention of the CPL. Is WSAD in violation of the CPL?
2. "Derived works" seems to be a term of art for which there is no generally
accepted definition. Here are three definitions that seem to be implied by
existing open source licenses:
a. Works that use the Program, in source or object form, in any way (GPL)
b. Works that use the Program and do essentially the same thing as the
Program (SPL)
c. Works that incorporate source code from the Program (CPL?).
From the FAQ answers, the authors of the CPL apparently intend a narrow
construction like (c). If either of the other two were used, then surely
WSAD would be a derived work and would have to license its source code with
the CPL. Could you please clarify the meaning of "derived works"?
Thanks.
Bob Foster
bob@objfac.com
"Adrian Cho" <adrian_cho@oti.com> wrote in message
news:agneuk$7c0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> FYI Bob, I have spoken to both the authors of the CPL FAQ and the folks
that
> worked with developerWorks to have it posted. They have not yet seen your
> feedback yet but it could still be in the developerWorks queue. We want
to
> make sure your feedback is handled so if you do not get a response soon,
> please post here and I will look into it ASAP.
>
> Also FYI, the Eclipse Legal FAQ is being finalised and reviewed and I hope
> to have it posted soon. It deals with more Eclipse-specific legal things
> such as the Eclipse.org Software User Agreement, and so forth. Hopefully
it
> will further assist you and others with navigating the legal waters.
>
> Adrian
>
> "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> news:agj6dd$ufi$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > "Peter Burka" <peter_burka@oti.com> wrote in message
> > news:aghhno$8i4$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > > Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download the
> > source
> > > > code for WSAD?
> > > FAQ 19: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the CPL
> and
> > > distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
> > Program,
> > > must I make the source code to my module available in accordance with
> the
> > > terms of the CPL?
> > >
> > > No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program.
> > > Peter Burka
> >
> > Thanks, Peter. I understand what you and your co-workers are trying to
> tell
> > me - that there is no issue here. The definition of 'derivative work'
> > remains a sticking point, as Adrian anticipated.
> >
> > I have provided feedback to the FAQ writers. Hopefully, I'll get some
> > response.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #567968 is a reply to message #8052] |
Sat, 13 July 2002 03:46 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
Sorry about the spacing. I pasted from Word. Shame on me.
Bob
"Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
news:ago55e$drk$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Thanks, Adrian. It seemed a little strange to post such a question to the
> webmaster. Here is what I asked:
> ----------------
> I have two questions:
>
>
>
> 1. Para 15 of the FAQ says "The object code for the product may be
> distributed under a single license as long as it references the CPL
portion
> and complies, for that portion, with the terms of the CPL".
>
>
>
> Since IBM's WSAD does just that, I looked to the WSAD license as a model
for
> such a reference. But it contains no mention of Eclipse, per se, and no
> mention of the CPL. Is WSAD in violation of the CPL?
>
>
>
> 2. "Derived works" seems to be a term of art for which there is no
generally
> accepted definition. Here are three definitions that seem to be implied by
> existing open source licenses:
>
>
>
> a. Works that use the Program, in source or object form, in any way (GPL)
>
> b. Works that use the Program and do essentially the same thing as the
> Program (SPL)
>
> c. Works that incorporate source code from the Program (CPL?).
>
>
>
> From the FAQ answers, the authors of the CPL apparently intend a narrow
> construction like (c). If either of the other two were used, then surely
> WSAD would be a derived work and would have to license its source code
with
> the CPL. Could you please clarify the meaning of "derived works"?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Bob Foster
>
> bob@objfac.com
>
>
>
> "Adrian Cho" <adrian_cho@oti.com> wrote in message
> news:agneuk$7c0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > FYI Bob, I have spoken to both the authors of the CPL FAQ and the folks
> that
> > worked with developerWorks to have it posted. They have not yet seen
your
> > feedback yet but it could still be in the developerWorks queue. We want
> to
> > make sure your feedback is handled so if you do not get a response soon,
> > please post here and I will look into it ASAP.
> >
> > Also FYI, the Eclipse Legal FAQ is being finalised and reviewed and I
hope
> > to have it posted soon. It deals with more Eclipse-specific legal
things
> > such as the Eclipse.org Software User Agreement, and so forth.
Hopefully
> it
> > will further assist you and others with navigating the legal waters.
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > news:agj6dd$ufi$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > "Peter Burka" <peter_burka@oti.com> wrote in message
> > > news:aghhno$8i4$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > > > Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download the
> > > source
> > > > > code for WSAD?
> > > > FAQ 19: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the
CPL
> > and
> > > > distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
> > > Program,
> > > > must I make the source code to my module available in accordance
with
> > the
> > > > terms of the CPL?
> > > >
> > > > No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program.
> > > > Peter Burka
> > >
> > > Thanks, Peter. I understand what you and your co-workers are trying to
> > tell
> > > me - that there is no issue here. The definition of 'derivative work'
> > > remains a sticking point, as Adrian anticipated.
> > >
> > > I have provided feedback to the FAQ writers. Hopefully, I'll get some
> > > response.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #568251 is a reply to message #8083] |
Mon, 15 July 2002 06:54 |
Adrian Cho
Messages: 18
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
No problem. Shame on Bill Gates. <G>
I have passed your questions directly to the CPL FAQ authors. This is also
a good test to see whether the developerWorks feedback mechanism really
works.
Thanks
Adrian
"Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
news:ago5pr$e1f$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Sorry about the spacing. I pasted from Word. Shame on me.
>
> Bob
>
> "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> news:ago55e$drk$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > Thanks, Adrian. It seemed a little strange to post such a question to
the
> > webmaster. Here is what I asked:
> > ----------------
> > I have two questions:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Para 15 of the FAQ says "The object code for the product may be
> > distributed under a single license as long as it references the CPL
> portion
> > and complies, for that portion, with the terms of the CPL".
> >
> >
> >
> > Since IBM's WSAD does just that, I looked to the WSAD license as a model
> for
> > such a reference. But it contains no mention of Eclipse, per se, and no
> > mention of the CPL. Is WSAD in violation of the CPL?
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. "Derived works" seems to be a term of art for which there is no
> generally
> > accepted definition. Here are three definitions that seem to be implied
by
> > existing open source licenses:
> >
> >
> >
> > a. Works that use the Program, in source or object form, in any way
(GPL)
> >
> > b. Works that use the Program and do essentially the same thing as the
> > Program (SPL)
> >
> > c. Works that incorporate source code from the Program (CPL?).
> >
> >
> >
> > From the FAQ answers, the authors of the CPL apparently intend a narrow
> > construction like (c). If either of the other two were used, then surely
> > WSAD would be a derived work and would have to license its source code
> with
> > the CPL. Could you please clarify the meaning of "derived works"?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob Foster
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #568573 is a reply to message #8052] |
Tue, 16 July 2002 18:18 |
Adrian Cho
Messages: 18
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Bob
I believe that IBM will be changing the feedback mechanism for CPL FAQ to
opensrc@us.ibm.com to ensure better response. Thanks for testing the other
mechanism for us <G>.
On your question about WSAD, I just wanted to note two things:
Firstly, I have said in the past that IBM has to play on the field like
anyone else (WRT CPL and using Eclipse) - I did not lie. That is IBM's
intention but it is also true that at least for Eclipse 1.0 which was frozen
prior to the open source launch last November, that since it is all 100% IBM
code, IBM could theoretically license in any other manner. This could not
be the case for products based on Eclipse 2.0 though since that code quite
possibly includes third-party contributions.
Secondly, I can't speak specifically for WSAD but I should just mention that
under section 3 of the CPL, if you redistribute in object code form (under
its own license), there is no requirement to mention or include the CPL.
You do have to meet all the conditions listed in the first part of section 3
including that you have to state that source code is available for the
portions you obtained under the CPL and you then have to point people to the
code.
I don't know which of these applies to the WSAD license case - I'm just
pointing out that both are possibilities and the second point certainly
applies to you or anyone else.
Adrian
"Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
news:ago55e$drk$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Thanks, Adrian. It seemed a little strange to post such a question to the
> webmaster. Here is what I asked:
> ----------------
> I have two questions:
>
>
>
> 1. Para 15 of the FAQ says "The object code for the product may be
> distributed under a single license as long as it references the CPL
portion
> and complies, for that portion, with the terms of the CPL".
>
>
>
> Since IBM's WSAD does just that, I looked to the WSAD license as a model
for
> such a reference. But it contains no mention of Eclipse, per se, and no
> mention of the CPL. Is WSAD in violation of the CPL?
>
>
>
> 2. "Derived works" seems to be a term of art for which there is no
generally
> accepted definition. Here are three definitions that seem to be implied by
> existing open source licenses:
>
>
>
> a. Works that use the Program, in source or object form, in any way (GPL)
>
> b. Works that use the Program and do essentially the same thing as the
> Program (SPL)
>
> c. Works that incorporate source code from the Program (CPL?).
>
>
>
> From the FAQ answers, the authors of the CPL apparently intend a narrow
> construction like (c). If either of the other two were used, then surely
> WSAD would be a derived work and would have to license its source code
with
> the CPL. Could you please clarify the meaning of "derived works"?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Bob Foster
>
> bob@objfac.com
>
>
>
> "Adrian Cho" <adrian_cho@oti.com> wrote in message
> news:agneuk$7c0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > FYI Bob, I have spoken to both the authors of the CPL FAQ and the folks
> that
> > worked with developerWorks to have it posted. They have not yet seen
your
> > feedback yet but it could still be in the developerWorks queue. We want
> to
> > make sure your feedback is handled so if you do not get a response soon,
> > please post here and I will look into it ASAP.
> >
> > Also FYI, the Eclipse Legal FAQ is being finalised and reviewed and I
hope
> > to have it posted soon. It deals with more Eclipse-specific legal
things
> > such as the Eclipse.org Software User Agreement, and so forth.
Hopefully
> it
> > will further assist you and others with navigating the legal waters.
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > news:agj6dd$ufi$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > "Peter Burka" <peter_burka@oti.com> wrote in message
> > > news:aghhno$8i4$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > > > Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download the
> > > source
> > > > > code for WSAD?
> > > > FAQ 19: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the
CPL
> > and
> > > > distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
> > > Program,
> > > > must I make the source code to my module available in accordance
with
> > the
> > > > terms of the CPL?
> > > >
> > > > No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program.
> > > > Peter Burka
> > >
> > > Thanks, Peter. I understand what you and your co-workers are trying to
> > tell
> > > me - that there is no issue here. The definition of 'derivative work'
> > > remains a sticking point, as Adrian anticipated.
> > >
> > > I have provided feedback to the FAQ writers. Hopefully, I'll get some
> > > response.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: CPL FAQ available at IBM web site [message #568634 is a reply to message #8573] |
Tue, 16 July 2002 19:50 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
As always, I appreciate your helpful response. Should I re-send my questions
(esp. #2) or do they have enough copies now? ;-} Thanks!
Bob
"Adrian Cho" <adrian_cho@oti.com> wrote in message
news:ah1m7n$ad9$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Bob
>
> I believe that IBM will be changing the feedback mechanism for CPL FAQ to
> opensrc@us.ibm.com to ensure better response. Thanks for testing the
other
> mechanism for us <G>.
>
> On your question about WSAD, I just wanted to note two things:
>
> Firstly, I have said in the past that IBM has to play on the field like
> anyone else (WRT CPL and using Eclipse) - I did not lie. That is IBM's
> intention but it is also true that at least for Eclipse 1.0 which was
frozen
> prior to the open source launch last November, that since it is all 100%
IBM
> code, IBM could theoretically license in any other manner. This could not
> be the case for products based on Eclipse 2.0 though since that code quite
> possibly includes third-party contributions.
>
> Secondly, I can't speak specifically for WSAD but I should just mention
that
> under section 3 of the CPL, if you redistribute in object code form (under
> its own license), there is no requirement to mention or include the CPL.
> You do have to meet all the conditions listed in the first part of section
3
> including that you have to state that source code is available for the
> portions you obtained under the CPL and you then have to point people to
the
> code.
>
> I don't know which of these applies to the WSAD license case - I'm just
> pointing out that both are possibilities and the second point certainly
> applies to you or anyone else.
>
> Adrian
>
> "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> news:ago55e$drk$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > Thanks, Adrian. It seemed a little strange to post such a question to
the
> > webmaster. Here is what I asked:
> > ----------------
> > I have two questions:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Para 15 of the FAQ says "The object code for the product may be
> > distributed under a single license as long as it references the CPL
> portion
> > and complies, for that portion, with the terms of the CPL".
> >
> >
> >
> > Since IBM's WSAD does just that, I looked to the WSAD license as a model
> for
> > such a reference. But it contains no mention of Eclipse, per se, and no
> > mention of the CPL. Is WSAD in violation of the CPL?
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. "Derived works" seems to be a term of art for which there is no
> generally
> > accepted definition. Here are three definitions that seem to be implied
by
> > existing open source licenses:
> >
> >
> >
> > a. Works that use the Program, in source or object form, in any way
(GPL)
> >
> > b. Works that use the Program and do essentially the same thing as the
> > Program (SPL)
> >
> > c. Works that incorporate source code from the Program (CPL?).
> >
> >
> >
> > From the FAQ answers, the authors of the CPL apparently intend a narrow
> > construction like (c). If either of the other two were used, then surely
> > WSAD would be a derived work and would have to license its source code
> with
> > the CPL. Could you please clarify the meaning of "derived works"?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob Foster
> >
> > bob@objfac.com
> >
> >
> >
> > "Adrian Cho" <adrian_cho@oti.com> wrote in message
> > news:agneuk$7c0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > FYI Bob, I have spoken to both the authors of the CPL FAQ and the
folks
> > that
> > > worked with developerWorks to have it posted. They have not yet seen
> your
> > > feedback yet but it could still be in the developerWorks queue. We
want
> > to
> > > make sure your feedback is handled so if you do not get a response
soon,
> > > please post here and I will look into it ASAP.
> > >
> > > Also FYI, the Eclipse Legal FAQ is being finalised and reviewed and I
> hope
> > > to have it posted soon. It deals with more Eclipse-specific legal
> things
> > > such as the Eclipse.org Software User Agreement, and so forth.
> Hopefully
> > it
> > > will further assist you and others with navigating the legal waters.
> > >
> > > Adrian
> > >
> > > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:agj6dd$ufi$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > "Peter Burka" <peter_burka@oti.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:aghhno$8i4$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > Having read this, what I want to know is, where can I download
the
> > > > source
> > > > > > code for WSAD?
> > > > > FAQ 19: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the
> CPL
> > > and
> > > > > distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of
the
> > > > Program,
> > > > > must I make the source code to my module available in accordance
> with
> > > the
> > > > > terms of the CPL?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program.
> > > > > Peter Burka
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Peter. I understand what you and your co-workers are trying
to
> > > tell
> > > > me - that there is no issue here. The definition of 'derivative
work'
> > > > remains a sticking point, as Adrian anticipated.
> > > >
> > > > I have provided feedback to the FAQ writers. Hopefully, I'll get
some
> > > > response.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Sep 26 02:27:29 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.09342 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
