I can't say that I agree with that rationale. One of his major requirements is: > Have a “strong” copyleft, including the so-called “network protection”, which

I can't say that I agree with that rationale. One of his major requirements is: > Have a “strong” copyleft, including the so-called “network protection”, which mandates that people submit changes even if they operate the code as a service (rather than sending people binaries). However the EUPL allows you redistribute under other "compatible" licenses[1] most of which don't provide that "network protection". Effectively, the EUPL is only as strong as the weakest "compatible" license listed in the appendix. [1] These "compatible" licenses wouldn't otherwise be compatible, except that the EUPL explicitly allows re-licensing to them instead.