Home » Eclipse Projects » Eclipse Platform » CPL license Confusion
| CPL license Confusion [message #68249] |
Mon, 09 June 2003 13:53  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: sinlee.hotmail.com
Dear all,
I am a bit confused by the CPL license, even after reading
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html .
The situation is this: I am interested in developing a generic GUI based
on Eclipse Platform and GEF. I am using those API as it is without
modifying anyone of them. I want to distribute the program as source code.
However, if they modify any part of the source code written by me, I do
prefer them to make it available to others. My preference is to get the
licensing of my program as close to GNU GPL as I can possibly get, if I
cannot use GNU GPL.(Note: I use GNU GPL to mean General Public Licnese
instead of GPL coz GPL looks very much the same as CPL on my news reader!)
I see a lot of programs using Eclipse at sourceforge.net which are
distributed under GNU GPL. However, my reading of the CPL is that if I
distribute in source code, even if I did not modify any source code I
download from eclipse.org, my program must use CPL. That will immediately
forbid me from using GNU GPL or indeed any other licenses. Is my
interpretation correct?
Moreover, the nature of my software if I cannot call proprietory
softwares, the software usefulness is extremely restricted. I use the term
proprietory software to mean softwares that I don't own the source code
and/or license from others in binary format. Of course I will have to
respect everyone's software license, including the CPL. I will prefer
"tight" integration in which my Open Source Software will provide ways of
calling on the function and interrogate those proprietry software at the
source code level. The use of these proprietory softwares will not be
essential to the actual functioning of the proprietory software. I am
pretty sure that I am respecting everyones' license agreements
(proprietory, CPL, GPL or other licenses) if I get the GUI to call on
proprietory program via the command line interface of these programs.
However, I would prefers that it is possible to allow the GUI to provide
sufficient extension interface to bypass the command line interface and
call on the programs directly. This has several advantages including
better error managements.
My aim is to split this interface into two parts: The front end and the
backend. The front end will communicate with the GUI and hence has to be
made available to everyone, while the back end can be kept proprietory if
necessary.
The analoguous situation in Linux will be allowing the inclusion of
proprietory, non opensource drivers for video card etc. The GUI will play
the role of Linux, Linux provides enough hooks and holes for the
inclusion of the proprietory driver. If the driver only utilize the hooks
and holes, the manufacturer does not have to make the driver opensourced.
However, if the driver provider finds it necessary to create more hooks
and holes in Linux to get Linux to work with his driver, the extra hooks
and holes created for Linux will have to be open-sourced.
My worry is that CPL does not allow me to call on proprietory software
beyond the command line interface. Is my worry justified?
Thanking you in advance and best regards,
Sin Lee Huang
|
|
| |
| Re: CPL license Confusion [message #68900 is a reply to message #68249] |
Tue, 10 June 2003 03:01  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
Free legal advice is worth less than you pay for it and IANAL. However, if
you consult the legal FAQ, you will see that you can ship your own source
code under your own license, in source or binary form, and you can package
it with CPL-licensed code, as long as modified or unmodified CPL code
remains licensed under the CPL and you provide source for it.
The GNU GPL is a problem because it requires that anything distributed with
it (or even linked to it) also be licensed with the GPL. This would require
changing the license of the CPL code, which is not permitted. In short, CPL
and GPL don't mix.
opensource.org maintains a list of open source licenses used in the
industry, many of which are compatible with the CPL. Pick one of those that
meets your needs. In your distribution, make it clear that CPL code is
licensed by the CPL and your code is licensed by your own license.
Bob
"Sin Lee Huang" <sinlee@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc2hir$nnl$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Dear all,
>
> I am a bit confused by the CPL license, even after reading
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html .
>
> The situation is this: I am interested in developing a generic GUI based
> on Eclipse Platform and GEF. I am using those API as it is without
> modifying anyone of them. I want to distribute the program as source code.
> However, if they modify any part of the source code written by me, I do
> prefer them to make it available to others. My preference is to get the
> licensing of my program as close to GNU GPL as I can possibly get, if I
> cannot use GNU GPL.(Note: I use GNU GPL to mean General Public Licnese
> instead of GPL coz GPL looks very much the same as CPL on my news reader!)
>
> I see a lot of programs using Eclipse at sourceforge.net which are
> distributed under GNU GPL. However, my reading of the CPL is that if I
> distribute in source code, even if I did not modify any source code I
> download from eclipse.org, my program must use CPL. That will immediately
> forbid me from using GNU GPL or indeed any other licenses. Is my
> interpretation correct?
>
> Moreover, the nature of my software if I cannot call proprietory
> softwares, the software usefulness is extremely restricted. I use the term
> proprietory software to mean softwares that I don't own the source code
> and/or license from others in binary format. Of course I will have to
> respect everyone's software license, including the CPL. I will prefer
> "tight" integration in which my Open Source Software will provide ways of
> calling on the function and interrogate those proprietry software at the
> source code level. The use of these proprietory softwares will not be
> essential to the actual functioning of the proprietory software. I am
> pretty sure that I am respecting everyones' license agreements
> (proprietory, CPL, GPL or other licenses) if I get the GUI to call on
> proprietory program via the command line interface of these programs.
> However, I would prefers that it is possible to allow the GUI to provide
> sufficient extension interface to bypass the command line interface and
> call on the programs directly. This has several advantages including
> better error managements.
>
> My aim is to split this interface into two parts: The front end and the
> backend. The front end will communicate with the GUI and hence has to be
> made available to everyone, while the back end can be kept proprietory if
> necessary.
>
> The analoguous situation in Linux will be allowing the inclusion of
> proprietory, non opensource drivers for video card etc. The GUI will play
> the role of Linux, Linux provides enough hooks and holes for the
> inclusion of the proprietory driver. If the driver only utilize the hooks
> and holes, the manufacturer does not have to make the driver opensourced.
> However, if the driver provider finds it necessary to create more hooks
> and holes in Linux to get Linux to work with his driver, the extra hooks
> and holes created for Linux will have to be open-sourced.
>
> My worry is that CPL does not allow me to call on proprietory software
> beyond the command line interface. Is my worry justified?
>
>
> Thanking you in advance and best regards,
> Sin Lee Huang
>
|
|
|
| Re: CPL license Confusion [message #68987 is a reply to message #68249] |
Tue, 10 June 2003 06:18 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: sinleeh.hotmail.com
Dear Jared, Bob and all,
[(Bob) I agree that free legal advice is not worth the bytes it consume.
;)]
Thanks for replying. I was not seeking legal advice. As you both indicated
and I agree, it will be necessary to pay a lawyer to do so. (However, to
be fair to my institution's legal department, they are willing to give me
free advice. And, I will have to see them before I release the software as
an open source product.)
What I am looking for is other's opinion on the licensing term in terms of
its philosophy. I strongly believe that the philosophy behind the movement
is more important then any legal mussles any movement can achieve.For
example, SCO might one day win the SCO vs IBM battle, but I believe damage
to SCO is already done.
I did thought CPL is a more "permissive" (and incompatible) license then
GPL in the sense that it allows source code to be "hidden" to allow
building of proprietory programs. Where I got confused is that I thought
if I distribute source code, my contribution can only be done under CPL.
This is a surprise because this will practically forbids company A from
licensing their source code to another. Furthermore, this is in
contradition to the "permissive" nature outline above. Thank you all for
clearing this up.
Bob, I did think that GPL is incompatible with CPL and thanks for
confirming it. I think what they meant is that the code they wrote are
distributed under a "GPL"-like condition. Eclipse code are of course still
under CPL.
Jared, your suggestion is good. I will ask around my local community and
see what other's lawyers thinks.
A very big thank you to you all,
Sinleeh
Sin Lee Huang wrote:
> Dear all,
> I am a bit confused by the CPL license, even after reading
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html .
> The situation is this: I am interested in developing a generic GUI based
> on Eclipse Platform and GEF. I am using those API as it is without
> modifying anyone of them. I want to distribute the program as source code.
> However, if they modify any part of the source code written by me, I do
> prefer them to make it available to others. My preference is to get the
> licensing of my program as close to GNU GPL as I can possibly get, if I
> cannot use GNU GPL.(Note: I use GNU GPL to mean General Public Licnese
> instead of GPL coz GPL looks very much the same as CPL on my news reader!)
> I see a lot of programs using Eclipse at sourceforge.net which are
> distributed under GNU GPL. However, my reading of the CPL is that if I
> distribute in source code, even if I did not modify any source code I
> download from eclipse.org, my program must use CPL. That will immediately
> forbid me from using GNU GPL or indeed any other licenses. Is my
> interpretation correct?
> Moreover, the nature of my software if I cannot call proprietory
> softwares, the software usefulness is extremely restricted. I use the term
> proprietory software to mean softwares that I don't own the source code
> and/or license from others in binary format. Of course I will have to
> respect everyone's software license, including the CPL. I will prefer
> "tight" integration in which my Open Source Software will provide ways of
> calling on the function and interrogate those proprietry software at the
> source code level. The use of these proprietory softwares will not be
> essential to the actual functioning of the proprietory software. I am
> pretty sure that I am respecting everyones' license agreements
> (proprietory, CPL, GPL or other licenses) if I get the GUI to call on
> proprietory program via the command line interface of these programs.
> However, I would prefers that it is possible to allow the GUI to provide
> sufficient extension interface to bypass the command line interface and
> call on the programs directly. This has several advantages including
> better error managements.
> My aim is to split this interface into two parts: The front end and the
> backend. The front end will communicate with the GUI and hence has to be
> made available to everyone, while the back end can be kept proprietory if
> necessary.
> The analoguous situation in Linux will be allowing the inclusion of
> proprietory, non opensource drivers for video card etc. The GUI will play
> the role of Linux, Linux provides enough hooks and holes for the
> inclusion of the proprietory driver. If the driver only utilize the hooks
> and holes, the manufacturer does not have to make the driver opensourced.
> However, if the driver provider finds it necessary to create more hooks
> and holes in Linux to get Linux to work with his driver, the extra hooks
> and holes created for Linux will have to be open-sourced.
> My worry is that CPL does not allow me to call on proprietory software
> beyond the command line interface. Is my worry justified?
> Thanking you in advance and best regards,
> Sin Lee Huang
|
|
| |
| Re: CPL license Confusion [message #71894 is a reply to message #70387] |
Thu, 12 June 2003 09:16 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: sinleeh.hotmail.com
Dear Ed,
I will pass on your recommendation to the management. Unfortunately it is
not sololy my decision. I agree with what you say, (that we have too many
open source license and people will do what they will do regardless of
license) and that's why I am more interested in the philosophy of the
license instead of its wording. Moreover, I don't think we have the time
and money to detect and prosecute others for license infringement.
My uphill struggle (to which nobody can help) is to convince management to
relax their half-baked "open source" definition. In other words, they
originally planned for the work to be "open source" for academic research
only. I managed to persuade them the full "open source definition" is more
approriate in our case and now need to convince them of the "exact" open
source license to use.
Thank you for your input.
Best regards,
Sinlee
Ed Burnette wrote:
> I recommend people just use Apache or CPL if they can. I think you'll find
> that people will send you back any modifications, or they won't, regardless
> of what the license says. And the world has enough licenses so please don't
> make a new one. My $0.02.
> --
> Ed Burnette, co-author Eclipse in Action (www.manning.com/gallardo)
> "Sin Lee Huang" <sinleeh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bc4b8v$42p$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > However, if they modify any part of the source code written by me, I do
> > prefer them to make it available to others.
> >...
> > What I am looking for is other's opinion on the licensing term in terms of
> > its philosophy.
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Jul 27 14:12:54 EDT 2025
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.28912 seconds |
Home