@virtulis You mean is #fosstodon still giving #nazi sympathisers a free pass? Yeah, its business as usual in that regard

@agnes Yeah, #fosstodon is a cesspit

@andrewrk A plan to rename pigs is already underway and I hear good things about it

@AAMfP @Mehrad @Lluis_Revilla @EUCommission
It's of course intended as an anti-SaaS clause, and the big SaaS providers are of course aware, so in that sense it is quite deliberately done this way.
Of course it affects eg. Hobbyists who just want to run a service on VPS in exactly the same way.
IMO the #EUPL is a very double edged sword in that sense.

@kytta @scy That's technically incorrect. I know the fsf believes you can just "relicense" EUPL code under a different license, but that's a misinterpretation of "compatibility".
What you can do is link your GPL code against EUPL code or include EUPL code in your GPL program and continue to distribute the work as GPL.
That works because there is no virility in European law.
The included code will however remain EUPL licensed.

@AAMfP @Mehrad @Lluis_Revilla @EUCommission
The main caveat here is that this paragraph turns this license into an EULA, which does not only apply to the developer but also the user of the software.
It does not only apply to developers if software but also its users. As such, I would argue that "silently" forcing the obligations guaranteed onto the user is not a friendly move and is probably not compatible with the law on many European countries.
The same applies to AGPL as well, though they choose to not state it explicitly, which might be just fine in American jurisdiction, for which GPL licenses are primarily designed.