EUPL - v1.2 [EN / English]
eupl.eu
European Union Public Licence [EUPL] v1.2 [EN / English]

TLDR: It’s compatible with other copy-left licenses like GPLv3. However, it’s available in multiple languages, which technically makes it more applicable.

I started using it for my own project. If you want a practical example: https://github.com/TimoKats/emmer

  • david_@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    2·
    16 days ago

    Highly interesting. However:

    So these are the parts of the EUPL 1.2 that are most relevant to copyleft:

    1. Obligations of the Licensee

    …

    Copyleft clause: If the Licensee distributes or communicates copies of the Original Works or Derivative Works, this Distribution or Communication will be done under the terms of this Licence or of a later version of this Licence unless the Original Work is expressly distributed only under this version of the Licence — for example by communicating ‘EUPL v. 1.2 only’. The Licensee (becoming Licensor) cannot offer or impose any additional terms or conditions on the Work or Derivative Work that alter or restrict the terms of the Licence.

    Compatibility clause: 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. For the sake of this clause, ‘Compatible Licence’ refers to the licences listed in the appendix attached to this Licence. Should the Licensee’s obligations under the Compatible Licence conflict with his/her obligations under this Licence, the obligations of the Compatible Licence shall prevail.

    Having read this section multiple times, also in different languages, I preliminarily believe that the following still remains possible:

    1. Let’s say that some person or entity “A” has released some code under the EUPL.

    2. Some other person or entity “B” creates a derivative work and distributes it (including all of A’s code) under the LGPL. This is allowed per the first sentence of the EUPL’s Compatibility clause above: “this Distribution or Communication can be done under the terms of this Compatible Licence”. Here B is a licensee of the EUPL-licenced work, and what the final part of the Compatibility clause (just like the text that you quoted) says is that B, being a licensee of a EUPL-licensed work, continues to be bound by all of the EUPL’s copyleft obligations. Fair enough.

    3. Now some third person or entity “C” comes along, and takes just this re-distributed work, which is being distributed by B under the terms of just the LGPL. Here C has no obligations under the EUPL, because C is only dealing with code that is distributed by B under just the LGPL. That is, C is solely a licensee under the terms of the LGPL.

    And thus the exploit would be: Corporation C pays some straw man company B to re-distribute A’s interesting EUPL code under the LGPL, so that corporation C can pick it up while only needing to comply with the weaker copyleft of the LGPL.

    • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      1·
      16 days ago

      I am not an expert in copyright law, which is what these licenses are based upon and cannot analyze the text.

      Still, couldn’t you make it even more straightforward by forking twice yourself?

      1. Take the original EUPL code and fork it under the LGPL
      2. Take the LGPL code and fork it under the LGPL
      3. This second fork has all EUPL conditions removed

      I’d by surprised if the license authors did not consider this. Lawyers wrote this with consideration of EU law after all, not some laypeople.

      If I had to guess: Any inclusion of EUPL code in another project would have to be marked as being under the EUPL. This is solely to inform anyone who wants to fork this section and distribute the code in form of SaaS to abide by source code requests.

      It’s like an EU variant of the AGPL whose many conditions about linking apparently don’t hold up in EU court. The GPL’s are all primarily considering US copyright law after all.