{"id":"CPL-1.0","title":"Common Public License 1.0","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://opensource.org/license/CPL-1.0","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"The Common Public License is the agreement the Eclipse Public License 1.0 was cut from: the same definitions, the same grant of copyright and patent rights, the same commercial distribution indemnity. Source form must stay under this Agreement, which the record carries as a licence-wide share-alike duty. The record follows EclipsePublicLicense10 and departs from it in the two places section 3 requires. Nothing here is legal advice.","findings":[{"rubric":2,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:target","description":"dcmitype:Software alone, following EclipsePublicLicense10 and EPL-2.0, the two records of this family already in the library. The text licenses a Program, that is software in source code and object code form, so neither dalicc:CreativeWork nor dcmitype:Dataset is written.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Section 2(a) grants \"a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute and sublicense the Contribution of such Contributor, if any, and such derivative works, in source code and object code form\", so dalicc:sublicense is a permission; section 2(b) grants a patent licence, so dalicc:patentGrant is one. Section 4 contemplates a commercial product offering, so cc:CommercialUse, dalicc:chargeDistributionFee and dalicc:chargeLicenseFee are permitted, as in EclipsePublicLicense10.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited, because section 3 says that when the Program is made available in source code form \"it must be made available under this Agreement\". dalicc:patentRetaliationTermination comes from section 7. dalicc:promote is not written: unlike the AFL and OSL texts, this Agreement has no trademark or endorsement clause, although EclipsePublicLicense10 carries the prohibition.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"dalicc:ChangeLicense","description":"Section 3 also says: \"A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form under its own license agreement, provided that: a) it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement\". Read alone that is dalicc:ChangeLicense with a dalicc:compliantLicense duty, which is what EclipsePublicLicense10 carries. It is not written here because the consistency check reports a permitted change of licence together with a share-alike duty as a direct conflict, and the source-form reciprocity is the stronger statement. The clause is quoted in dalicc:additionalClauses; the association has to decide which of the two readings the library keeps.","action":"proposed"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"Section 3 carries the reciprocity: \"When the Program is made available in source code form: a) it must be made available under this Agreement; and b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy of the Program.\" That is a licence-wide cc:ShareAlike duty and cc:Notice. \"Contributors may not remove or alter any copyright notices contained within the Program\" and \"Each Contributor must identify itself as the originator of its Contribution\" give cc:Attribution on the three acts and dalicc:modificationNotice on odrl:modify and odrl:derive. Section 3(b)(iv), which requires a distributor's own licence to state where the source code is available, gives cc:SourceCode on odrl:distribute.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"Sections 5 and 6 are quoted into dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation. dalicc:additionalClauses carries section 3, the commercial distribution indemnity of section 4, the patent litigation clause, the termination clause, the agreement-steward clause and the governing-law clause.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"Section 7 states: \"This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and the intellectual property laws of the United States of America.\" The record keeps cc:jurisdiction dalicc:worldwide and quotes the clause, which is what EclipsePublicLicense10 does and what the review group does for every governing-law clause; bpicounty:UnitedStates would overstate a choice-of-law clause as a territorial limit.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"The indemnity of section 4, which obliges a commercial distributor to defend the other contributors, has no term; proposed dalicc:commercialDistributorIndemnity. The automatic termination on breach has no property; proposed dalicc:terminatesOnBreach. Both are quoted.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"family","description":"CPL-1.0, IPL-1.0 and the two Lucent licences are one text with four stewards. EclipsePublicLicense10 is the same document again, with the Eclipse Foundation as steward and the New York choice of law kept. Where this record has a licence-wide cc:ShareAlike duty and a dalicc:ChangeLicense prohibition, the existing EclipsePublicLicense10 record has a dalicc:ChangeLicense permission and no share-alike, so the two disagree about the same sentence; the review raises it.","action":"none"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check of app.services.composer with the axioms of dg_default returned an empty list for this record.","action":"none"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"Weak-copyleft family alignment of 2026-09-15: section 3 requires a distributor who distributes the Program in object code form to state that the source code is available and how to obtain it. The duty was on odrl:distribute alone; it is now also on odrl:modify and odrl:derive, which is where the other twenty-four records of the weak-copyleft family carry it, so a comparison of two of them shows a difference between the licences and not between two reviewers.","action":"applied"}],"family":"Eclipse, Common Public and Lucent","port_of":null,"variant_kind":null,"notes":"Modelled from the SPDX plain text of CPL-1.0 and checked against the URL in cc:legalcode. The record is not marked as a version variant: CPL-1.0 is the parent of EPL-1.0 but carries its own name and id."}