www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: virality of IBM's CPL ?
Date Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:58:27 GMT
Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org> wrote on 07/24/2006 11:17:39 AM:

> Hello,
> we discussed recently with a legal person to review our third-party 
> dependencies and the person interpreted that any derived work of a 
> CPL-licensed library should also be CPL; at it seemed, derived work 
> might be any linking... so that would imply any jUnit test case or 
> anything touching wsdl4j is under CPL... not what we expect !
> Can anyone please contradict me here ?
> thanks
> paul
I'm happy to contradict you . . . 

Look at http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html, 
specifically the answer to #19 and the examples.  The CPL definitions rely 
on module boundaries.  Separate modules that aren't otherwise derived from 
each other have no license effect, at least as far as the CPL is 


Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation  (914)766-1757  (tie)8-826  (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus  (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/ 

View raw message