3 ms·

> t clarifies a lot of things that for example the GPL leaves unsaid, due to the different legal framework Such as what? > And it is good that it explicitly c

> t clarifies a lot of things that for example the GPL leaves unsaid, due to the different legal framework Such as what? > And it is good that it explicitly calls out the legal jurisdiction it sits under (EU). Offputting if you are not in the EU. > It's good that it has been written in multiple languages to aid acceptance across the EU. Yes, but it looks like its designed primarily for use by the EU itself. It says: > The main objective of the European Commission is to distribute widely and promote the use of software owned by itself and other European Institutions under an Free/Open Source Licence conform to European law requirements. Its great that the EU commission is committing to open source, but only EU institutions rather than a broader push for FOSS in the EU. > Would be nice to see reciprocation so the new software could also be published under the EUPL Unlikely, because no one other than an EU agency would want some of the clauses. The click to agree thing in particular.

Ragnarork 1y ago
If you don't like the scope of the license especially with regards to the legal jurisdiction it sits under, then don't use it, don't use software under EUPL license, and call it a day?
steve_gh 1y ago
>> And it is good that it explicitly calls out the legal jurisdiction it sits under (EU). >Offputting if you are not in the EU. Knowing the jurisdiction that the licence sits under is a huge advantage, because it tells you the legal framework you are operating under. That means that a lawyer should be able to advise you on what meets the license terms based on settled law and precedent. That's much cheaper than fighting it out in court.
- graemep 1y ago
  Not compared to the jurisdiction being your local one.
  - steve_gh 1y ago
    I disagree. If your local jurisdiction does not deal with software licences regularly, then how they chose to interpret them is unknown. So you may end up in an expensive court fight. With a known jurisdiction building a solid corpus of precedent and case law then there are fewer unknowns. It's really the same as corporate incorporation - you chose a jurisdiction with a solid corpus of precedent and case law to avoid court cases. that's why most folk chose Delaware for the US.
    - graemep 1y ago
      I maybe looking at it from a point of view of being in a legal system (the UK) that I have reasonable confidence in with regard to most civil cases. I always prefer contracts to specify England ans Wales as the jurisdiction, for example.
scotty79 1y ago
> > And it is good that it explicitly calls out the legal jurisdiction it sits under (EU). > Offputting if you are not in the EU. Why? US law is terrible. You don't want to be ruled by it on pretty much any issue you can avoid.
- graemep 1y ago
  Fair point. I am not in the US so not looking at it the same way I suppose. I have lived in a country where I did not prefer the jurisdiction so I can understand. The US might still be attractive to the licensor because of some aspects of copyright law there.

Ragnarork 1y ago

If you don't like the scope of the license especially with regards to the legal jurisdiction it sits under, then don't use it, don't use software under EUPL license, and call it a day?

steve_gh 1y ago

>> And it is good that it explicitly calls out the legal jurisdiction it sits under (EU). >Offputting if you are not in the EU. Knowing the jurisdiction that the licence sits under is a huge advantage, because it tells you the legal framework you are operating under. That means that a lawyer should be able to advise you on what meets the license terms based on settled law and precedent. That's much cheaper than fighting it out in court.

graemep 1y ago
Not compared to the jurisdiction being your local one.
- steve_gh 1y ago
  I disagree. If your local jurisdiction does not deal with software licences regularly, then how they chose to interpret them is unknown. So you may end up in an expensive court fight. With a known jurisdiction building a solid corpus of precedent and case law then there are fewer unknowns. It's really the same as corporate incorporation - you chose a jurisdiction with a solid corpus of precedent and case law to avoid court cases. that's why most folk chose Delaware for the US.
  - graemep 1y ago
    I maybe looking at it from a point of view of being in a legal system (the UK) that I have reasonable confidence in with regard to most civil cases. I always prefer contracts to specify England ans Wales as the jurisdiction, for example.

scotty79 1y ago

> > And it is good that it explicitly calls out the legal jurisdiction it sits under (EU). > Offputting if you are not in the EU. Why? US law is terrible. You don't want to be ruled by it on pretty much any issue you can avoid.

graemep 1y ago
Fair point. I am not in the US so not looking at it the same way I suppose. I have lived in a country where I did not prefer the jurisdiction so I can understand. The US might still be attractive to the licensor because of some aspects of copyright law there.