4 ms·
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
by 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 agoGoatCounter 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