3 ms·

The compatability clause is what it makes it useless though, because someone could take your EUPL and convert it to GPL, so EUPL software dies but GPL lives.

tsimionescu 1y ago
Sure, just like the BSD and MIT and Apache licenses died, since they allow people to take the software and distribute it under the GPL.
- trueismywork 1y ago
  No, there's a difference. BSD, MIT and Apache (permissive licenses) are generally used when the provider doesnt care how the end result is used. So, even if other people relicense their code containing Apache licensed part, it doesnt change the business model of that code. In contrast, affero style copyleft licenses are used often specifically to support a business model which allows contributors to take changes from other people back into their code. And an uncaring party can take EUPL code, relicense it under AGPL and now, the original party cannot use the AGPL code. Linus made the same argument for not having GPL 2.0 or later for linux kernel.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
adev_ 1y ago
That does not seem to be the case > If the Licensee Distributes or Communicates Derivative Works or copies thereof based upon both the Work and another work licensed under a Compatible Licence, this Distribution or Communication can be done under the terms of this Compatible Licence. They do mention explicitly "Derivative works", meaning you can not just convert an EUPL software component to GPL and call it a day. To my understanding: If you do include an EUPL component inside a GPLv3 project and it is allowed. But the component itself stay under EUPL. (I would appreciate the confirmation of a lawyer from EU, I am not one).
- pmontra 1y ago
  IANAL but that could mean that if I take the code of EUPL project Work and I fork it as Libre Work and add a very minor and useless feature that uses another work licensed with some GPL license (not difficult because I can pick the dependency by license,) I have a derivative work that I can distribute under GPLv2. However it seems strange that they didn't think about that. Maybe it's only a bad choice of words, which is equally strange.
  - adev_ 1y ago
    > However it seems strange that they didn't think about that. Maybe it's only a bad choice of words, which is equally strange. I think it is just a different intend. To my understanding, the EUPLv1.2 is structured as a weak copy-left license in the spirit of the MPLv2 but with a major effort on license compatibility. Its quite well explained here: https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/licence-compatibility-permissivity-reciprocity-and-interoperability https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/li... The intend seems to never be a "strong license" that enforce "strong copyleft" like the GPLv3 / AGPL everywhere. It is more to give a license under which you can create a project that blend a lot of different component under different licenses (GPL, MPL and co) without requiring an army of lawyer to check the compatibility of this mess. That is currently immensely valuable in academic software and in large international collaborations. It also clarify the License contamination behavior over Linking at European Level which is very welcome, because it is frankly speaking, a mess, with license like LGPL.
Scandiravian 1y ago
I'm not sure that's true My understanding is it's possible to license either new contributions to a project under GPL, with the original contributions keeping EUPL or you can license a derivative work under GPL, though you still have to comply with the EUPL in regards to the original work (meaning the SaaS loophole will remain closed)

tsimionescu 1y ago

Sure, just like the BSD and MIT and Apache licenses died, since they allow people to take the software and distribute it under the GPL.

trueismywork 1y ago
No, there's a difference. BSD, MIT and Apache (permissive licenses) are generally used when the provider doesnt care how the end result is used. So, even if other people relicense their code containing Apache licensed part, it doesnt change the business model of that code. In contrast, affero style copyleft licenses are used often specifically to support a business model which allows contributors to take changes from other people back into their code. And an uncaring party can take EUPL code, relicense it under AGPL and now, the original party cannot use the AGPL code. Linus made the same argument for not having GPL 2.0 or later for linux kernel.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

adev_ 1y ago

That does not seem to be the case > If the Licensee Distributes or Communicates Derivative Works or copies thereof based upon both the Work and another work licensed under a Compatible Licence, this Distribution or Communication can be done under the terms of this Compatible Licence. They do mention explicitly "Derivative works", meaning you can not just convert an EUPL software component to GPL and call it a day. To my understanding: If you do include an EUPL component inside a GPLv3 project and it is allowed. But the component itself stay under EUPL. (I would appreciate the confirmation of a lawyer from EU, I am not one).

pmontra 1y ago
IANAL but that could mean that if I take the code of EUPL project Work and I fork it as Libre Work and add a very minor and useless feature that uses another work licensed with some GPL license (not difficult because I can pick the dependency by license,) I have a derivative work that I can distribute under GPLv2. However it seems strange that they didn't think about that. Maybe it's only a bad choice of words, which is equally strange.
- adev_ 1y ago
  > However it seems strange that they didn't think about that. Maybe it's only a bad choice of words, which is equally strange. I think it is just a different intend. To my understanding, the EUPLv1.2 is structured as a weak copy-left license in the spirit of the MPLv2 but with a major effort on license compatibility. Its quite well explained here: https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/licence-compatibility-permissivity-reciprocity-and-interoperability https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/li... The intend seems to never be a "strong license" that enforce "strong copyleft" like the GPLv3 / AGPL everywhere. It is more to give a license under which you can create a project that blend a lot of different component under different licenses (GPL, MPL and co) without requiring an army of lawyer to check the compatibility of this mess. That is currently immensely valuable in academic software and in large international collaborations. It also clarify the License contamination behavior over Linking at European Level which is very welcome, because it is frankly speaking, a mess, with license like LGPL.

Scandiravian 1y ago

I'm not sure that's true My understanding is it's possible to license either new contributions to a project under GPL, with the original contributions keeping EUPL or you can license a derivative work under GPL, though you still have to comply with the EUPL in regards to the original work (meaning the SaaS loophole will remain closed)