Common Public License (IBM)

[Dan Streetman]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:

>It might be helpful when posting licenses to state what the goal is in using
>this type of license rather than a license already approved (or already
>submitted under a different name). If this license is identical to the IBM
>Public License except for dropping a direct reference to "IBM," then I am
>puzzled why they would submit this one.

Well, I'm just a developer, I can't give you the reasoning behind the
changes, but I'll speculate.  If you ***really*** must know why the
changes were made (and a new license thus created) I guess I could try to
find out.  But, from the perspective of simply evaluating the license,
does it really matter?

Ok, here's my guess:

If you read the IBM Public License you will see that it makes the
assumption that IBM released the 'Original Program':

<quote>
"Original Program" means the original version of the software
accompanying this Agreement as released by IBM, including source code,
object code and documentation, if any. 
</quote>

Which seems to totally prevent anyone outside of IBM from using the
license.  The CPL doesn't make this assumption, and as far as I can tell,
that is the only change made - removing the assumption that IBM created
the original program (and removing the requirement to put 'Copyright IBM'
in the program).

Hope that helps.

And BTW, I am not speaking as an official IBM representative here, this is
my own time & email.

-- 
Dan Streetman
ddstreet at ieee.org
---------------------
186,272 miles per second:
It isn't just a good idea, it's the law!