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

  • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Oh, I didn’t consider the “any other” aspect.

    Welp, I can still register several distinct legal entities in different EU countries, can’t I? Maybe one could be a “Taking every EUPL work on the internet and relicensing it under LGPL as a service” company. That’s bound to make some money from SaaS companies if it would be this easy to purge the EUPL terms.

    Though the “ideology” quote is a bit awful, I’ll give you that. The matrix itself does look fairly neutral though, especially with this part under “Discussion of Linking”:

    We made the assumption that, by selecting a Gnu license, licensors follow the FSF position and want to consider that most cases of static linking create a derivative.

    I’d also argue the 27 legal systems might not be too relevant since copyright law is generally equal in the different member states. The remaining legal issues (e.g. warranty) are irrelevant for interoperabilith between licenses. Also, most importantly, there are only 24 languages in the EU.

    If the official guidelines are recognized by courts as legally binding then I think the EUPL is superior to even the AGPL. Sadly that remains to be seen due to the lack of EUPL projects out there (and the lack of corresponding lawsuits).