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

  • Ben Matthews@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    2·
    7 hours ago

    I’m still confused by this. Doesn’t that imply that if a derivative SaaS is created in combination with a weaker ( less-copyleft ) license such as GPL, Apache or MIT, then the weaker licence wins, so the derivative source code no longer has to be published ? I’m not looking for a ‘do whatever you like’ licence, I’d prefer a copyleft approach like AGPL, but one that’s easier to defend in europe.

    • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      2·
      6 hours ago

      The weaker licenses don’t even mention SaaS so they aren’t in conflict with the EUPL there. As such, the EUPL’s copyleft protections should still remain for code published under it, even when used in an MPL project.

      I’m imagining it as a pseudo-dual license permission and the EUPL as some sort of Affero-LGPL.

      Though SaaS vendors would probably comply maliciously and only send EUPL code snippets back when requesting source code, if they are used in a differently licensed project.

      • Ben Matthews@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        2·
        6 hours ago

        I hope you are right but fear that in practice (has this ever been tested?) you might not be.
        See for example this discussion ( note especially comments by ‘MadHatter’ )

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          1·
          1 hour ago

          A lot of the discussion seems to be US centric though, such as this quote:

          Courts have a strong tendency to read licences on their faces, that is to say, they look only to the text of the licence to determine rights and obligations. In some cases, courts have explicitly refused [link to https://creativecommons.org/2017/07/06/cc-amicus-brief/] amicus briefs from the authors of the licences who wished to clarify the intended interpretation of their text.

          Since this links to a US court decision, I believe the first part also refers to the US. As little as I know about EU law, what I do know is that it is often intentionally vague to ensure the spirit of the law cannot be violated. That seems to be the same for the EUPL where vagueness is preferred over concrete definitions which may hold up even worse in (EU) court due to the limitations on copyright law.