4 ms·

While on the topic, I think EUPL should become the default license for open-source projects in the business context. It's a weak copyleft license (OSI and FSF a

While on the topic, I think EUPL should become the default license for open-source projects in the business context. It's a weak copyleft license (OSI and FSF approved), so it does not strike mortal fear of "viral" license spread on business partners. Similar to EPL, MPL, and LGPL, it creates an obligation of sharing back the changes made to weak-copyleft licensed portion of the code. Finally, EUPL closes the SaaS loophole, which is similar to a non-existent Affero LGPL license.

rapnie 3y ago
It is interesting that the EU institutions started using #EUVoice (Mastodon) [0] and #EUVideo (Peertube) [1] on the Fediverse, both AGPL-licensed. [0] https://social.network.europa.eu https://social.network.europa.eu [1] https://tube.network.europa.eu https://tube.network.europa.eu
arp242 3y ago
The EUPL has a lot of things going for it: it's readable by mortals (unlike GPL), has official translations, and in general is just "GPL, but better". That said, it doesn't quite close the "SaaS loophole". Or rather, it's somewhat easily circumvented as the EUPL allows combining your code with other copyleft "compatible licenses" and then redistributing all of this combined work under the "compatible license". These compatible licenses include the GPL and LGPL. For my project I removed these licenses from the list of "compatible license", so technically it's not "EUPL 1.2", although it's close enough... I brought this up with one of the authors of the EUPL a few years back, and they felt it was fine as-is, but I still wish it would allow things to be a bit more flexible in this regard. Still, I think EUPL is an excellent replacement for the GPL. But AGPL is a bit more complex. I still prefer my "EUPL 1.2 Martin flavour" because IMHO the AGPL is a horrendously written license and the text is just atrocious even by legalize standards. It sees very little usage unfortunately; last time I checked my project was the only one in all of the Void repo to use EUPL :-/
- jmholla 3y ago
  Which of your projects uses your modified license? That sounds like it could be just right for a project I'm working on. Edit: Reading up more on it, it sounds like modifying the license isn't allowed. It's explicitly called out in section 3.7 of their guidelines. [0] Also, I didn't see anything in their guidelines that would help with the "SaaS loophole", unless you are referring just to the source availability as the loophole. [0]: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/EUPL%201_1%20Guidelines%20EN%20Joinup.pdf https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
abrookewood 3y ago
For anyone wondering: "New provisions cover the Application service provider loophole of software distribution: Distribution and/or Communication (of software) includes providing on-line "access to its essential functionalities"." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Public_Licence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Public_Licence

rapnie 3y ago

It is interesting that the EU institutions started using #EUVoice (Mastodon) [0] and #EUVideo (Peertube) [1] on the Fediverse, both AGPL-licensed. [0] https://social.network.europa.eu https://social.network.europa.eu [1] https://tube.network.europa.eu https://tube.network.europa.eu

arp242 3y ago

The EUPL has a lot of things going for it: it's readable by mortals (unlike GPL), has official translations, and in general is just "GPL, but better". That said, it doesn't quite close the "SaaS loophole". Or rather, it's somewhat easily circumvented as the EUPL allows combining your code with other copyleft "compatible licenses" and then redistributing all of this combined work under the "compatible license". These compatible licenses include the GPL and LGPL. For my project I removed these licenses from the list of "compatible license", so technically it's not "EUPL 1.2", although it's close enough... I brought this up with one of the authors of the EUPL a few years back, and they felt it was fine as-is, but I still wish it would allow things to be a bit more flexible in this regard. Still, I think EUPL is an excellent replacement for the GPL. But AGPL is a bit more complex. I still prefer my "EUPL 1.2 Martin flavour" because IMHO the AGPL is a horrendously written license and the text is just atrocious even by legalize standards. It sees very little usage unfortunately; last time I checked my project was the only one in all of the Void repo to use EUPL :-/

jmholla 3y ago
Which of your projects uses your modified license? That sounds like it could be just right for a project I'm working on. Edit: Reading up more on it, it sounds like modifying the license isn't allowed. It's explicitly called out in section 3.7 of their guidelines. [0] Also, I didn't see anything in their guidelines that would help with the "SaaS loophole", unless you are referring just to the source availability as the loophole. [0]: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/EUPL%201_1%20Guidelines%20EN%20Joinup.pdf https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

abrookewood 3y ago

For anyone wondering: "New provisions cover the Application service provider loophole of software distribution: Distribution and/or Communication (of software) includes providing on-line "access to its essential functionalities"." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Public_Licence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Public_Licence