3 ms·

I do appreciate _not_ using some home made license, thank you. Personally though, I find the AGPL too restrictive for projects. The [OSI Certified] EUPL I thin

I do appreciate _not_ using some home made license, thank you. Personally though, I find the AGPL too restrictive for projects. The [OSI Certified] EUPL I think is perfect: * If you don't modify the code: Behaves like the ASL2.0 * If you do modify the code: * Behaves like the LGPL in that your private codebase remains private, but changes to the library must be submitted back during a 'distribution' event * Behaves like the AGPL: Offering a service that uses the library counts as a 'distribution'

tristan957 3y ago
I've never heard of this license before. Thanks for pointing it out.
robertlagrant 3y ago
The last point I never understand. E.g. take Redis if it were licenced in that way: where is the line where it counts as a service? Directly exposing a Redis port? Putting a REST API over the top of it and selling a cache as a service? Making a paid for JWT invalidation service that's basically a small application layer of Redis? Or something else?
- exabrial 3y ago
  I suggest reading the license as IANAL... but my understanding is all three of those would count as a "distribution" event. Keep in mind, you would only need to "make source available" if and only if you modified Redis. And even in that case, you only have to submit the modifications to Redis. So even though a "distribution event" is happening, if there are no changes to the Redis server or client library itself, you're compliant without doing anything else. So yeah, all things considered, it'd be a great license for Redis in my opinion.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I'm referring to the second bullet point, though.
benatkin 3y ago
This web page tells me they really don't want you to read the license. https://commission.europa.eu/content/european-union-public-licence_en https://commission.europa.eu/content/european-union-public-l... You have to go to a list of languages, and then once you find English on the list it gives you a PDF or text, no HTML version. I read it, and I think the exception allowing for compatibility with the MPL would allow me to pretty much do what I want with a larger work, as long as I release changes to the code files, and shipped it with some MPL code. It says that where the license conflicts, the compatible license prevails. I'm also not convinced that the Distribution section behaves like the AGPL: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/12298 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/12298
- exabrial 3y ago
  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/...
- wolfskaempf 3y ago
  The fact that the EUPL is available in all the official languages of the Member States of the European Union is a very important aspect of the license for me. This means I could reasonably fight for the freedom of my software in the local courts available to me in my home country, which does not have English as an official language. As the European Commission claims on their site, as one of the reasons they chose to create a new license instead of relying on those already available: > The licence should have equal legal value in many languages. In addition, the EUPL is not any license text some (from a legal perspective random) people came up with, but the text of the license was written and voted into law by the EU itself, therefore it can and does rightfully claim the following, which is invaluable to me as a FLOSS author residing in the EU. > any litigation resulting from the interpretation of this License [...] will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union [...] So even if the local courts interpretation in my home country falls short, the Court of Justice of the European Union will surely take into account the intended purpose of this license as laid out by the legislators of the EU.

tristan957 3y ago

I've never heard of this license before. Thanks for pointing it out.

robertlagrant 3y ago

The last point I never understand. E.g. take Redis if it were licenced in that way: where is the line where it counts as a service? Directly exposing a Redis port? Putting a REST API over the top of it and selling a cache as a service? Making a paid for JWT invalidation service that's basically a small application layer of Redis? Or something else?

exabrial 3y ago
I suggest reading the license as IANAL... but my understanding is all three of those would count as a "distribution" event. Keep in mind, you would only need to "make source available" if and only if you modified Redis. And even in that case, you only have to submit the modifications to Redis. So even though a "distribution event" is happening, if there are no changes to the Redis server or client library itself, you're compliant without doing anything else. So yeah, all things considered, it'd be a great license for Redis in my opinion.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I'm referring to the second bullet point, though.

benatkin 3y ago

This web page tells me they really don't want you to read the license. https://commission.europa.eu/content/european-union-public-licence_en https://commission.europa.eu/content/european-union-public-l... You have to go to a list of languages, and then once you find English on the list it gives you a PDF or text, no HTML version. I read it, and I think the exception allowing for compatibility with the MPL would allow me to pretty much do what I want with a larger work, as long as I release changes to the code files, and shipped it with some MPL code. It says that where the license conflicts, the compatible license prevails. I'm also not convinced that the Distribution section behaves like the AGPL: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/12298 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/12298

exabrial 3y ago
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/...
wolfskaempf 3y ago
The fact that the EUPL is available in all the official languages of the Member States of the European Union is a very important aspect of the license for me. This means I could reasonably fight for the freedom of my software in the local courts available to me in my home country, which does not have English as an official language. As the European Commission claims on their site, as one of the reasons they chose to create a new license instead of relying on those already available: > The licence should have equal legal value in many languages. In addition, the EUPL is not any license text some (from a legal perspective random) people came up with, but the text of the license was written and voted into law by the EU itself, therefore it can and does rightfully claim the following, which is invaluable to me as a FLOSS author residing in the EU. > any litigation resulting from the interpretation of this License [...] will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union [...] So even if the local courts interpretation in my home country falls short, the Court of Justice of the European Union will surely take into account the intended purpose of this license as laid out by the legislators of the EU.