4 ms·

I was curious about differences between EUPL and GPL Affero, I found the following: > the EUPL could therefore be described as an “affero-like” licence (AGPLv3

I was curious about differences between EUPL and GPL Affero, I found the following: > the EUPL could therefore be described as an “affero-like” licence (AGPLv3). > The EUPL covers SaaS (Software as a Service): if an internet service provider modifies the licensed software to distribute online services (as Google does), this is “software distribution”. https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/news/eupl-or-gplv3-comparison-t https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/ne...

tpxl 1y ago
I'm not a lawyer and have little experience reading legal text. I can't find the text of the license saying SaaS is covered. Can you point it out?
- GeertJohan 1y ago
  The EUPL isn't as explicit as AGPL. > — ‘Distribution’ or ‘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.
geokon 1y ago
Where can you find a good description..? Does it have the equivalent "anti-Tivoization" requirement of GPLv3? I found Linus Torvalds' arguments for GPLv2 (vs v3) very compelling, but the SaaS loophole to contributing back seems sort of absurd. Torvalds doesn't get his code changes either.. so I feel he's likely also not thrilled. I'd love to find something that's effectively AGPLv2 (and not v3) EDIT: Here: Nevermind .. it seems to have bizarre relicensing loopholes.. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 Seems a bit insane - esp the two step relicense : > The EUPL allows relicensing to GPLv2 only and GPLv3 only So I guess you just relicense to GPLv2 and then do whatever you want
- adastra22 1y ago
  How about the AGPLv2? It’s a thing. (Original Affero GPL).
  - geokon 1y ago
    From what I understand, the original one is "broken" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_Lice... > In the Free Software Foundation's judgment, the added requirement in section 2(d) of Affero GPL v1 made it incompatible with the otherwise nearly identical GPLv2. That is to say, one cannot distribute a single work formed by combining components covered by each license. > By contrast, the GPLv3 and GNU AGPLv3 licenses include clauses (in section 13 of each license) that together achieve a form of mutual compatibility for the two licenses. Maybe what I'm asking doesn't make sense. B/c it requires for for instance GPL to include the ability to be restricted further by the no-SaaS clause. The GPL only allows for AGPLv3. It's explicit
    - adastra22 1y ago
      That's only an issue if you want to mix GPL & AGPL, and if you accept the FSF's interpretation (which is hardly clear-cut).
GeertJohan 1y ago
I believe there is a problem/conflict with the networked-software clause and the EUPL's compatibility clause. It allows anyone to fork a project under the GPL license. When someone makes a fork of an EUPL project under the GPL license, they are then bypassing the extra conditions set out in the AGPL. I believe this to be a mistake/loophole in the EUPL. But I am not a lawyer so I really hope an actual legal expert can weigh in on this.
adastra22 1y ago
Isn’t that the whole point of AGPL?

tpxl 1y ago

I'm not a lawyer and have little experience reading legal text. I can't find the text of the license saying SaaS is covered. Can you point it out?

GeertJohan 1y ago
The EUPL isn't as explicit as AGPL. > — ‘Distribution’ or ‘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.

geokon 1y ago

Where can you find a good description..? Does it have the equivalent "anti-Tivoization" requirement of GPLv3? I found Linus Torvalds' arguments for GPLv2 (vs v3) very compelling, but the SaaS loophole to contributing back seems sort of absurd. Torvalds doesn't get his code changes either.. so I feel he's likely also not thrilled. I'd love to find something that's effectively AGPLv2 (and not v3) EDIT: Here: Nevermind .. it seems to have bizarre relicensing loopholes.. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 Seems a bit insane - esp the two step relicense : > The EUPL allows relicensing to GPLv2 only and GPLv3 only So I guess you just relicense to GPLv2 and then do whatever you want

adastra22 1y ago
How about the AGPLv2? It’s a thing. (Original Affero GPL).
- geokon 1y ago
  From what I understand, the original one is "broken" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_Lice... > In the Free Software Foundation's judgment, the added requirement in section 2(d) of Affero GPL v1 made it incompatible with the otherwise nearly identical GPLv2. That is to say, one cannot distribute a single work formed by combining components covered by each license. > By contrast, the GPLv3 and GNU AGPLv3 licenses include clauses (in section 13 of each license) that together achieve a form of mutual compatibility for the two licenses. Maybe what I'm asking doesn't make sense. B/c it requires for for instance GPL to include the ability to be restricted further by the no-SaaS clause. The GPL only allows for AGPLv3. It's explicit
  - adastra22 1y ago
    That's only an issue if you want to mix GPL & AGPL, and if you accept the FSF's interpretation (which is hardly clear-cut).

GeertJohan 1y ago

I believe there is a problem/conflict with the networked-software clause and the EUPL's compatibility clause. It allows anyone to fork a project under the GPL license. When someone makes a fork of an EUPL project under the GPL license, they are then bypassing the extra conditions set out in the AGPL. I believe this to be a mistake/loophole in the EUPL. But I am not a lawyer so I really hope an actual legal expert can weigh in on this.

adastra22 1y ago

Isn’t that the whole point of AGPL?