Re: Open-source library proxying to a closed-source library (ITP #679504)
Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 18:48:47 +0200 Christophe-Marie Duquesne wrote:
>
> [...]
>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Francesco Poli
>> > It could *maybe* qualify for the contrib archive [2], as long as it is
>> > determined to be (legally redistributable and)
>>
>> Who would determine whether it is legally redistributable?
>
> The ultimate decision on what will or will not be distributed by Debian
> is up to the FTP Masters (possibly after consultation with other
> bodies, including the Debian-legal mailing list).
I think that your use of the header files to extract function
information is covered by fair use. In general, I think the code as a
whole can go into main, because it works fine with GLPK. If there
were separate packages for the proprietary solvers, then those would
have to go into contrib.
But IANAL and I am not an FTP Master.
>> > (even though I see that it is licensed under the terms of the EPL, a
>> > license that I personally dislike...).
>>
>> The EPL is the license recommended by coin-or [2] where I intend to
>> submit my project. I would be happy to relicense my work differently
>> as long as the new license is approved by the open source initiative
>> (coin-or requirement) and as it makes it possible to link Osi with it.
>>
>> [1]: http://scip.zib.de/
>> [2]: http://www.coin-or.org/contributions.html
>
> I would personally recommend a simpler license, such as the Expat license:
> http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
> also known as the MIT license:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MIT
I noticed that parts of the code are licensed under GPL 3+, and other
parts are EPL 1+. These are incompatible licenses, meaning that
Debian could not distribute binaries. One solution would be to put
everything under Expat or MIT. Alternately, you could dual license
everything under GPL 3+ and EPL 1+.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@caltech.edu
Reply to: