GPL doesn't count "Application Service Providers" as distribution, but does not prohibit to do so and to share/publish the combined/modified source code; It is just silent regarding SaaS, meaning that it seems that the GPL does not conflict with the EUPL on these points. And the EUPL (art. 5) compatibility clause states that, applied to a combined derivative, the compatible license will prevail in case there is a conflict with the provisions of the EUPL. When no conflict exists...
You are right: MPLv2 does not enforce contributing upstream. So you turn your manager into a fool (just a little bit).
The MPL is probably one of the best F/OSS licenses: clear, concise, well written...
But this is - hopefully - true for the EUPL as well.
For me - correct me if I'm wrong, the tivoization issue looks mostly related to what is really a "derivative" of your work (i. e. in case the level of dependency of some hardware device that uses/incoprporate your software is so high that it can be considered as a derivative).
For this reason the EUPL-1.2 covers "the Work", that could be software code, ancillary data, documentation, or even hardware in so far it could be considered as a derivative.
You are right, there is a "double coverage". The EUPL just states that the compatible license (applied to the combined derivative work) will prevail in case it conflicts with the EUPL.
But none of the listed compatible licenses (i.e. GPL-v2 or GPL-v3) prohibit, for example, the coverage of remote/SaaS distribution: they may not impose it (SaaS loophole) but allow it. So the EUPL code inside the combined derivative will stay covered by essential EUPL obligations, including the modified code sharing in case of remote distribution, even when the combined work is globally distributed under the GPL.
You could add:
- the EUPL, like the AGPL, covers all distribution modes (remote or SaaS...)
- the EUPL includes a CDO (contributor declaration of origin)
- the EUPL specifies more "realistic" liability exclusions (at a time the CRA Cyber Resilience Act is discussed it is better to face some potential issues: total liability exclusions, like in the MIT license are simply invalid).
- the EUPL is compatible with other "copyleft" licenses because it allows combined derivatives to be distributed under these (without giving up fundamental obligations of sharing and reciprocity, as none of the compatible licenses is in conflict withe the EUPL on these points.
- the EUPL is not "born in the USA" but is definitely not an "obscure" license. The upcoming Interoperable Europe Act states that all EU interconnected open source portals shall propose it (this is not exclusive of other licenses of course, i.e. if the GPL or AGPL is inherited).
- the EUPL philosophy was recently explained in a paper "The seven pillars of Wisdom": (https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/discussion/a...)
This is just a discussion paper. You are welcome!!!
It is a constant policy, from all "FSF-followers-free-software-activists" to try to discourage, on all public discussion forums, the use of the EUPL that is a copyleft license "other than GPL/AGPL". However, the referenced EUPL guidelines explain in full detail why using it is not "bad" or "wrong". The EUPL licence is 3 times shorter than the GPLv3, clearer, multilingual, interoperable and compatible with the GPLs/AGPL.
The FSF "strong copyleft theory" that linking propagates the GPL license was not (and will never be) validated by EU courts.
Agreed. There was a debate on the point "is the EUPL strong or weak copyleft?" It is not "strong copyleft" as the FSF conceives it, simply because European Law excludes license "viral" propagation in the case of linking (under any license, as soon the European law is applicable, which is always the case for the EUPL).
Hello all, I found this debate after 4 days of "internet vacation" to fulfill a dream of my grandson (10 years old) to go with me on the Legoland roller coaster in Denmark. What shocks me is the reproach made to RMS to be old! The real reproach would be to be dogmatic, stubborn, incapable of compromise, which perhaps is partly justified. I am over 70 myself and still enjoy advising the European Commission on FLOSS and the EUPL license.
Old age is when dreams give way to regrets,
Kind regards,
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz - EC Joinup legal support
True!
Regarding distribution as a service, the EUPL is like the AGPL, but simply written, short and clear. It is copyleft, but allows combined derivatives to be distributed under 10 compatible licences (including MPL, OSL, GPL2 & 3 and AGPL). The European Union (nobel peace prize 2012) is adopting the Interoperable Europe Act, a regulation that will make the EUPL a default licence proposed for all Member States public bodies software as from 2024. And by the way, this new regulation will be supported by a "Interoperable Europe Community" of users.
The purpose is still to define and may not be seen as creating a "European FSF" (Who said bureaucratic?)... However, Sometimes it is better to be supported by solid institutions than by an aging guru...
"Communication to the public" is a European Law concept that covers remote access. "Distribution" rather means the transfer of the Work (i.e. to be executed on the recipient device). The EUPL considers that the obligations of the licensee or recipient are the same in case of Communication or Distribution.