Heyo License-Chooser, does anybody know the difference between EUPL and GPL licenses?

I mostly don't really understand the license lingo, as English is not my mother tongue.

#license #gpl #eupl #foss #helpmeIdontknowwhythereareagazillionlicences

We gotta get rid of MIT & Apache licenses.

Use #GPL, or better yet the #AGPL or #EUPL depending on your needs.

Why work for free, for the benefit of capitalists?

uutils is especially disappointing for me for that reason

Looking for non-EU citizens who chose the EUPL. It has many of the properties I'm looking for, and self-declares itself a global license, but I'm not sure. Am I being sensibly cautious or American exceptionalist?

#Licensing #EUPL

Thinking about licensing again. I'm torn between the MPL and EUPL. I'm mostly after an MPL that closes the SaaS loophole: use my crates and jars where you like, but if you improve my work, share alike. This sounds like the EUPL, except I can't so easily tell, less explain to a skittish corporate attorney, what triggers a "derived work."

#Licensing #MPL #EUPL #Copyleft

European Union Public Licence (EUPL)

https://eupl.eu/

#HackerNews #EUPL #EuropeanUnion #OpenSource #SoftwareLicense

EDIT: nvmnd, i found the answer  

In a FAQ provided by the EU, one of the questions is “Could the use of a compatible licence reduce the reciprocity of the EUPL?”. This is basically what I was wondering about. The answer is that the copyleft part is not weakened, so the requirement for providing the source code, even in the case of a SaaS, remains.

For the specific reason; the EUPL says “Should the Licensee’s obligations under the Compatible Licence conflict with their obligations under this (EUPL) Licence, the obligations of the Compatible Licence shall prevail”. The reasoning why the obligation to share the code still stands, is that while eg GPL doesn’t require sharing the code in this case, it also doesn’t forbid it. Because it does not forbid it, it is not considered a conflict and therefor the EUPL still stands.

This is what I wanted to know  

Are there any lawyers here who have a good understanding of floss, copyleft, and have checked out the EUPL?

My specific concern:

Under article “5. Obligations of the Licensee” the “Compatibility clause” says

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.

Note that “Distribution or Communication” is defined as

‘Distribution’ or ‘Communication’: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, online or offline, copies of the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities at the disposal of any other natural or legal person.

let’s say I take a software licensed under EUPL. Then I (or someone else) write some separate piece of code and release that piece of code under, say, GPL or LGPL (who are listed as a Compatible Licence in the EUPL appendix). Now I combine both pieces of software.

If I understand correctly, this allows me to make available the “essential functionalities” of the resulting work (eg by hosting the software on a server and allowing people to use it, without distributing the code) under GPL/LGPL, meaning I don’t have to provide the source code (afaik GPL and LGPL don’t require this in this scenario, hence why AGPL was created).

This seems like an obvious loophole, but it does seem to be there. Am I missing something here?

EDIT: The original question used CC BY-SA 3.0 as an example, but that one is specifically listed for non-software only, wouldn’t be a problem here.

#Copyright #Copyleft #EUPL

Hey fedi, I'm considering making the EUPL v1.2 my default software license, anybody have a good reason why I shouldn't?

Note, I am only interested in copyleft licenses, so I'm not even considering things like Apache or MIT, but I'll gladly hear about problems it has that other copyleft licenses don't.

#EUPL #GPL #AGPL #copyright #SoftwareLicencing #licencing

Er zijn weer twee vrije #opensource-projecten van de #overheid beschikbaar onder de #EUPL.

#lxcore: een nieuwe versie van de #LinkeXtractor.

En de #LXdse (LinkeXtractor data set editor) voor het beheren van de datasets voor de #lxcore.

Je kunt de projecten hier vinden:
* https://gitlab.com/koop/ld/lx/lx-core
* https://gitlab.com/koop/ld/lx/lx-dse

De #LX is een referentie-parser voor het detecteren en canonaliseren van #juridische #referenties.

De LX gebruikt #LiDO als reference repository.

#rdf #linkeddata #FOSS

TIL there is a EUPL license (similar to GPLv3) which has been specifically aligned with EU-law. https://eupl.eu

#eu #eupl #gpl #foss