Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #26511, comment 35


Ignore:
Timestamp:
03/08/22 20:36:36 (5 months ago)
Author:
gh-tkralphs
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #26511, comment 35

    initial v1  
    11Hi all, I had lost track of this discussion after the IMA workshop and am now re-engaging. @mkoeppe, I looked back at some e-mail correspondence on this topic, but didn't really find a substantive answer there as to why license compatibility is an issue here. I understand that this is something probably prescribed by the Sage organization itself and this may not be the forum for this discussion. If not, I'd be happy to engage somewhere else.
    22
    3 It looks to me like this is a pretty conservative interpretation. It is certainly true that you cannot distribute a single binary that mixes GPL'd and EPL'd code, or a binary that calls a shared library where the two have different licenses (although one might claim it's OK if the main binary is GPL and it's the library that is EPL). But something like python-mip is a self-contained program in the Python programming language and it's not being distributed in binary form, but source form. Yes, when it uses Cbc, it calls a shared library that is under the EPL, but since python-mip itself is also under the EPL, this doesn't create any issue. I can't really see how re-distributing python-mip is a problem, regardless of what it is being re-distributed with. It is well-known that "EPL and GPL are incomatible," but I think this incompatibility is referring to a completely different context than we have here. Can someone say exactly which license is being violated and exactly who the violation is occurring?
     3It looks to me like this is a pretty conservative interpretation. It is certainly true that you cannot distribute a single binary that mixes GPL'd and EPL'd code, or a binary that calls a shared library where the two have different licenses (although one might claim it's OK if the main binary is GPL and it's the library that is EPL). But something like python-mip is a self-contained program in the Python programming language and it's not being distributed in binary form, but source form. Yes, when it uses Cbc, it calls a shared library that is under the EPL, but since python-mip itself is also under the EPL, this doesn't create any issue. I can't really see how re-distributing python-mip is a problem, regardless of what it is being re-distributed with. It is well-known that "EPL and GPL are incomatible," but I think this incompatibility is referring to a completely different context than we have here. Can someone say exactly which license is being violated and exactly how the violation is occurring?
    44
    55PuLP is even more clear cut, since it is in pure Python and only needs a self-contained Cbc binary to work. It is certainly no problem to re-distribute a statically linked Cbc binary in combination with anything. It doesn't link to anything and is itself a completely self-contained program, which can be freely re-distributed. We wouldn't claim PuLP cannot be distributed because it has the capability to use CPLEX. Further, PuLP is itself under a compatible license (MIT?).