3 ms·

Still allows for commercial use, but mandates source be provided with all executable versions (i.e. is copyleft). It is not clear to me from the text ( https://

Still allows for commercial use, but mandates source be provided with all executable versions (i.e. is copyleft). It is not clear to me from the text ( https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/custom-page/attachment/2020-03/EUPL-1.2%20EN.txt https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/custom-page/... ) what happens when the source is used to start providing a service (as the AGPL protects against). From my reading, you do not need to provide the source in this case. My confusion stems from the fact that the license speaks of "communicating" the work, as well as distributing it. I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

tokai 5y ago
It's defined in the license. ‘Communication’: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, online or offline, copies of the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities at the disposal of any other natural or legal person. Seems to me like it provides protection from TiVoization.
- krageon 5y ago
  What I was trying to say is that after reading it I was still unsure. From reading your comment and the person that responded to you, I see that is a reasonable interpretation. I'm cautiously optimistic, thanks :)
  - commoner 5y ago
    Just in case you didn't see the uodate to my original comment, I corrected it because it was wrong. The FSF has a much better analysis of the EUPL here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2
- commoner 5y ago
  Edit: Most of my original comment is wrong, because I failed to note that the EUPL's compatibility clause allows the software to be relicensed under a weaker copyleft license (Eclipse Public License v1). The FSF explains: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 EUPL v1.2 was published in 2017. It's not a new license. --- > or otherwise making available, online or offline, copies of the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities This part suggests that the EUPL is even stronger than AGPLv3 (Edit: incorrect, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 ), since the "communication" doesn't have to take place over a network. Neither GPLv3 nor AGPLv3 requires the corresponding source code to be made available to a user who interacts with preinstalled (A)GPLv3-licensed software on someone else's hardware (such as a voting machine).* The EUPL would require (Edit: incorrect) the source code to be provided in this case, since the hardware is providing the user with access to the software's "essential functionalities". The EUPL explicitly lists AGPLv3, GPLv2, GPLv3, and other popular copyleft licenses as "Compatible Licences" to clarify that EUPL-licensed software can be combined with other copyleft-licensed software. * https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3VotingMachine https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3VotingMachine

tokai 5y ago

It's defined in the license. ‘Communication’: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, online or offline, copies of the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities at the disposal of any other natural or legal person. Seems to me like it provides protection from TiVoization.

krageon 5y ago
What I was trying to say is that after reading it I was still unsure. From reading your comment and the person that responded to you, I see that is a reasonable interpretation. I'm cautiously optimistic, thanks :)
- commoner 5y ago
  Just in case you didn't see the uodate to my original comment, I corrected it because it was wrong. The FSF has a much better analysis of the EUPL here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2
commoner 5y ago
Edit: Most of my original comment is wrong, because I failed to note that the EUPL's compatibility clause allows the software to be relicensed under a weaker copyleft license (Eclipse Public License v1). The FSF explains: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 EUPL v1.2 was published in 2017. It's not a new license. --- > or otherwise making available, online or offline, copies of the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities This part suggests that the EUPL is even stronger than AGPLv3 (Edit: incorrect, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 ), since the "communication" doesn't have to take place over a network. Neither GPLv3 nor AGPLv3 requires the corresponding source code to be made available to a user who interacts with preinstalled (A)GPLv3-licensed software on someone else's hardware (such as a voting machine).* The EUPL would require (Edit: incorrect) the source code to be provided in this case, since the hardware is providing the user with access to the software's "essential functionalities". The EUPL explicitly lists AGPLv3, GPLv2, GPLv3, and other popular copyleft licenses as "Compatible Licences" to clarify that EUPL-licensed software can be combined with other copyleft-licensed software. * https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3VotingMachine https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3VotingMachine