5 ms·

TIL about European Union Public License: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/introduction-eupl-licence https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/intr

by srg0 6y ago

TIL about European Union Public License: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/introduction-eupl-licence https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/introduction-eup... OSI-certified, copyleft, non-viral, GPL-compatible, SaaS-aware, multilingual

swyx 6y ago
how can it be both copyleft and non viral? isn't vitality a definitive feature of copy left?
- contravariant 6y ago
  > it has no "viral effect" in case of linking
  - sc11 6y ago
    Neither does the GPL or any other licence under European laws.
    - icebraining 6y ago
      That's surprising, considering the virality is part of the license text, not the law; does the law prohibit that clause?
      - sc11 6y ago
        Here's a good explanation: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/news/why-viral-licensing-ghost https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/news/why-viral-l... The short answer is that there are certain protections that ensure interoperability, and that linking to software does not make it a derivative work.
        twic 6y ago
        That's an interesting analysis. That directive is usually understood to be about reverse engineering in order to build compatible software: "to obtain the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs" being a key bit. It's not immediately clear to me - a programmer but not a lawyer - that this has any bearing on whether linking creates a derivative work. Have any other experts, or courts, weighed in on whether this analysis is sound?
    - contravariant 6y ago
      That's interesting, wouldn't that mean that the licenses themselves aren't in some sense 'legal' in the EU? How does the GPL prevent this from invalidating down the whole license?
- icebraining 6y ago
  No, see LGPL and MPL for example.
Hitton 6y ago
I'm kinda confused about that, because https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EUPL-1.2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EUPL-1.2 seems to say that it's possible to relicense the source to GPL which would go directly against Goatcounter's author who apparently wanted AGPL-ish license without ideological fluff.
- Carpetsmoker 6y ago
  GoatCounter author here: yeah, that's not perfect; this also came up in the HN discussion for the article a while ago[1]. I've been in touch with one of the authors of the EUPL since and the short of it is that they don't really think it's an issue. I've thought about this for quite some time, and decided I'll use a slightly modified version of the EUPL which removes GPL from the compatible license appendix. Just haven't gotten around to that for no reason in particular. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21914245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21914245

by srg0 6y ago

swyx 6y ago

how can it be both copyleft and non viral? isn't vitality a definitive feature of copy left?

contravariant 6y ago
> it has no "viral effect" in case of linking
- sc11 6y ago
  Neither does the GPL or any other licence under European laws.
  - icebraining 6y ago
    That's surprising, considering the virality is part of the license text, not the law; does the law prohibit that clause?
    - sc11 6y ago
      Here's a good explanation: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/news/why-viral-licensing-ghost https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/news/why-viral-l... The short answer is that there are certain protections that ensure interoperability, and that linking to software does not make it a derivative work.
      - twic 6y ago
        That's an interesting analysis. That directive is usually understood to be about reverse engineering in order to build compatible software: "to obtain the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs" being a key bit. It's not immediately clear to me - a programmer but not a lawyer - that this has any bearing on whether linking creates a derivative work. Have any other experts, or courts, weighed in on whether this analysis is sound?
  - contravariant 6y ago
    That's interesting, wouldn't that mean that the licenses themselves aren't in some sense 'legal' in the EU? How does the GPL prevent this from invalidating down the whole license?
icebraining 6y ago
No, see LGPL and MPL for example.

Hitton 6y ago

I'm kinda confused about that, because https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EUPL-1.2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EUPL-1.2 seems to say that it's possible to relicense the source to GPL which would go directly against Goatcounter's author who apparently wanted AGPL-ish license without ideological fluff.

Carpetsmoker 6y ago
GoatCounter author here: yeah, that's not perfect; this also came up in the HN discussion for the article a while ago[1]. I've been in touch with one of the authors of the EUPL since and the short of it is that they don't really think it's an issue. I've thought about this for quite some time, and decided I'll use a slightly modified version of the EUPL which removes GPL from the compatible license appendix. Just haven't gotten around to that for no reason in particular. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21914245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21914245