I changed my license to EUPL
50 points by knedl
50 points by knedl
Over the years it has been clear that we in the “open source” camp (as opposed to the “free software” camp) were wrong all along. We won the debate, and gained little for users or developers. All that our efforts did was to make it easier for big corporations build things more cheaply and for billionaires to become trillionaires.
Totally agree. Not that the ubiquity of OSS didn't have any benefits, but now is time for a change.
I wasn't aware of the EUPL, I'm interested to know how it compares to the AGPL. There is a faq.
I mostly use GPLv3 or AGPLv3, and EUPL looks like a solid alternative. Hadn't heard of it before this post, so thanks for the pointer.
The fact that EUPL has legally valid official translations to 23 languages also doesn't hurt in a world where most of software is built and used in the wider world outside of the Valley.
This part really resonates. As someone from East Asia, though, I wish the list included at least one East Asian language: Chinese, Japanese, or Korean. Understandable given it's an EU effort, but still.
Note that compared to licenses you mentioned, EUPL is mashup of LGPL and AGPL. So not a viral copyleft license like GPL. It does not consider using EUPL code as library being derivetative work. From FAQ https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/faqs
The licence is reasonably (or moderately/weakly) "copyleft" meaning that copies and derivatives works must stay covered by the same licence in case they are distributed to third parties. Applied to the source code of these derivatives, the term "copyleft" itself combines reciprocity (modifications of improvements are published and shared with everybody) and "share alike licensing” (the use of the same - or very similar - license ensures the persistence of granted rights).
The definition of derivative works depends on the applicable law. If a covered work is modified, it becomes a derivative. Depending on the case, this gives rise to interpretation: if the normal purpose of the work is to help producing other works (it is a library or a work tool) it would be abusive to consider everything that is produced with the tool as "derivative". Moreover, European law considers that linking two independent works for ensuring their interoperability is authorised regardless of their licence and therefore without changing it. Since the EUPL is provided under the European law, this ensures no "viral" effect in the case of linking.
As I understand it, it's not so much that the EUPL has no viral effect, but more that no copyright-based license can have a viral effect according to European law. So from that perspective, this is exactly as copyleft as the AGPL, because both apply to modifications of covered works to the fullest extent possible under EU law.
Of course, this is the opinion of the people behind the EUPL — as I understand it, the FSF disagrees with this interpretation.
That would raise the expectation that it also works correctly in these legal regimes. I don't know if any pan-Asian body exists that harmonises copyright regimes, but if there is, they'd be in a good spot to build their own localized version.
EUPL was previously discussed here [1] on lobste.rs.
1: https://lobste.rs/s/msjuyz/eupl_european_union_public_license
The compatibility clause of the EUPL always brings up some confusion:
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
This is what the FSF has to say about that specific clause:
However, it gives recipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selected licenses, and some of those—the Eclipse Public License in particular—only provide a weaker copyleft. Thus, developers can't rely on this license to provide a strong copyleft.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2
This interpretation would also imply that e.g. the SaaS loophole that AGPL and EUPL close, can be bypassed in this way.
The EU itself does say the following:
To be legitimate, the use of the compatibility clause must result from necessity: using it for the sole purpose of relicensing a copy of the original work would be a copyright infringement.
https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/how-use-eupl
There's some more discussion about it from the EU itself (https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/discussion/clarifying-eupl-compatibility-clause, https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/discussion/how-does-fsf-considers-eupl) and HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45422512)
The license compatibility hack in the EUPL is quite smart: it covers redistribution only.
So for the purpose of distributing a combination of EUPL and GPL/... works, you can consider it all GPL/... - once you're back to any other use (and that includes modification), you're back to EUPL for the EUPL parts of the code.
That "loophole" thing is exaggerated
The problem, as I, a non-lawyer, understand it, is that if someone has distributed software to you under the GPL, then surely you have the freedoms granted according to the license you have received the software under — and the GPL does explicitly say that no further restrictions may be placed on the distributee, other than what is written in the GPL, which contradicts the idea that you can distribute something under one license, but add restrictions for other use under a different license.
That said, I agree that the loophole is exaggerated — the impression I get i
The problem, as I, a non-lawyer, understand it, is that if someone has distributed software to you under the GPL, then surely you have the freedoms granted according to the license you have received the software under — and the GPL does explicitly say that no further restrictions may be placed on the distributee, other than what is written in the GPL, which contradicts the idea that you can distribute something under one license, but add restrictions for other use under a different license.
That said, I agree that the loophole is exaggerated — I've never heard of a real-life case of that happening, just the theory that it could be possible.
For extra spiciness, make the license headers use your national languages. Also pointing at the full license in them. Finnish for you, Polish for me, consonant soup for everyone else
Great, but I'm worried that in the times of LLMs where big companies apperantly are free to strip and ignore license texts by running it through a data center this sadly doesn't really have all that much impact.
It has always been possible to reimplement code. Clean-room reimplementation, while to my understanding not strictly necessary from a legal point of view, has always been available to big companies.
One of the great things about LLMs is that they makes it possible for smaller companies and individuals to reimplement non-free software and release the product as free software for the community to build on.