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

GitRoot is fully compliant with the FSFE's #reuse specification for its licensing.

You can see the licenses for all packages (which are mostly EUPL) in our reuse.toml file here: https://gitroot.dev/worktree/REUSE.toml.html

The full license texts are also included in the source code repository here: https://gitroot.dev/worktree/LICENSES/

If in doubt, each file includes its license in the header.

And if you're wondering why we chose the EUPL, I've actually written a documentation page to explain that exact decision! 🥰 https://gitroot.dev/doc/rationales/rationale_licence.html

BTW: thanks @fsfe for providing reuse tool.

#foss #licence #eupl #europa

European Union Public Licence (EUPL)

https://eupl.eu/

#HackerNews #EUPL #EuropeanUnion #OpenSource #SoftwareLicense

EDIT: nvmnd, i found the answer :blobfoxcheer:

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 :blobfoxhappy:

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

:boost_requested:

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

@gedankenstuecke @next there is the #EUPL which is compatible with the GPL, includes SaaS distributions, and most importantly it is consistent with the copyright laws across all EU member states, while most other licenses are apparently only written with the US legal system in mind. It is written by, and approved by the European Commission.

I've decided to move all my #FOSS projects from #GPL to #EUPL .

The transition for my digital garden (see profile) on @Codeberg Pages is almost done.
Then I'll start with the software things.

Any thoughts?

@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.

@kkeijzer@mastodon.nl @dantalion

Ik heb geen bezwaar tegen het gebruik van SMS. Heel cool dat de Duitse #overheid die app via #Flathub beschikbaar maakt: https://flathub.org/apps/de.bund.ausweisapp.ausweisapp2

De broncode zag is zo snel niet, maar inderdaad wel de #EUPL. Dat zou @Logius, de @belastingdienst of @opensource toch moeten kunnen forken en aanpassen voor gebruik met #digid?!

Ik heb al een NFC-card-reader gekocht, omdat ik dacht dat ik daarmee kon inloggen bij digid, maar dat kan niet onder linux:

https://mastodon.social/@janvlug/114121929176077831

#TIL that there is an OSI approved OpenSource license called "European Union Public Licence" (EUPL). Yes, in this case the "licence" is written with C and not S:

https://commission.europa.eu/about/departments-and-executive-agencies/digital-services/open-source-strategy-history/european-union-public-licence_en

I was wondering if anyone have any argument against this license compared to GPLv2 and GPLv3.

I am about to release a small CLI tool and am looking for a license for it.

:boostRequest: Boosts are appreciated.

#EUPL

Side notes: Chose #EUPL for the license and @Codeberg for its home.

Was genau bedeutet denn die "unentgeltlich"-Bedingung in der European Union Public License für ein abgeleitetes Werk? Darf dieses ausschließlich kostenfrei vertrieben werden, oder muss es lediglich einen Weg geben es kostenlos zu erhalten? Was wäre denn mit tatsächlichen Bereitstellungskosten, z.B. beim Versand einer CD? Oder heißt es nur, dass für die Ausübung der Rechte auch später keine (weiteren) Gebühren erhoben werden dürfen?

"Der Lizenzgeber erteilt Ihnen hiermit [...] eine [...] unentgeltliche [...] Lizenz, die Sie berechtigt: [...]"

https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/EUPL%20v1_2%20DE.txt

Wäre es z.B. ein Lizenzverstoß, eine unter der EUPL veröffentlichte (und rechtmäßig lizenzierte) Smartphone-App kostenpflichtig über den PlayStore zu vertreiben?

#EUPL #OpenSource #Lizenzen #Rechtsfragen #App

📢 Registration is open for joining EU's legal experts for a webinar on EUPL - the European Union Open Source Public Licence:
https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/event/webinar-understanding-european-public-licence
#EUPL #opensource

When it comes to #OpenSource #licenses, the European Union Public Licence (#EUPL) has a special role to fulfil. This webinar will bring you up to speed with it, and show you why it's important to consider it for your projects.

https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/event/webinar-understanding-european-public-licence

TIL: The European Union Public License.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Public_Licence

Looks pretty decent actually!

• OSI and FSF approved
• copyleft
• SaaS clause (like the AGPL)
• explicitly compatible with several copyleft licenses to allow EUPL code to be integrated into GPL, AGPL, LGPL, OSL, MPL etc. projects
• based on European law
• available in 23 languages, all with the same validity

#EUPL #EuropeanUnion #software #license #FLOSS #OpenSource #licensing