Reading about the EUPL (the European Union Public License). Very cool.

Anyone know off the top of their heads whether it provides the same protections of freedoms for server-side use that AGPL does?


"Although legally not compatible (for copyleft reasons) the #AGPL is very close to the #EUPL (which covers also SaaS). The AGPL is also included in the EUPLv1.2 downstream compatibility list (EUPL Appendix) - therefore the EUPL is compatible with the AGPL: you may distribute under the AGPL a larger derivative work integrating components covered by the EUPL and by the AGPL."

Although more than 10 years old and OSI certified, I never heard of #EUPL before but scrolling through the licenses news feed I found out that #PiHole is licensed under EUPL. So maybe thats one of the most known tools to our community that already makes use of that "new to me european license".

Guess I will have to read a bit more, why I should coose EUPL over (A)GPL and others or if I shouldn't. @aral

@hansvurst @aral i ran out of patience trying to find a summary on their site. what is it?

@icedquinn @hansvurst Basically AGPL but with enhanced enforceability in the EU is how I read it. (Although it’s not compatible with AGPL as each requires derivatives to be licensed under their own license but nothing stopping folks from dual licensing under EUPL and AGPL.)

@icedquinn @hansvurst @aral Not necessarily a bad thing, anti-tivoization conditions in xGPLv3 render it unusable for automotive and other highly regulated industries.

@angdraug @hansvurst @aral i'm not highly interested in helping any industry where blocking the user from their own hardware is a prime directive. the excuse is almost always invalid.

(remembering here things like sleep machines and biomonitors where the biomonitor would report things to "the cloud" and spooks but users couldn't get their own data for self use because mUh DrM)

@angdraug @aral @hansvurst that being said what i tend to do is use the lesser variation of those licenses where usage does not trigger the viral conditions, only changes to the original modules do.

but i mostly write system and desktop code so the anti-cloud clauses haven’t been a priority.

@icedquinn @hansvurst @aral Automotive is the "almost" part of that category that has become the collateral damage of the generally good idea to prevent tivoization. From VW emissions scandal to Jeep's remote carjacking bugs to broader safety concerns, there are many good reasons to have tighter limits on changes in software that manages fundamental functions of cars that go on public roads. Blanket ban of xGPLv3 doesn't leave room for this kind of nuance.

@angdraug @hansvurst @aral what a shame they will have to pay for their own work instead of looting the commons.

@icedquinn @hansvurst @aral Actually they end up having to use non-copyleft software and looting the commons without being required to contribute back.

@icedquinn @angdraug @aral @hansvurst lol at getting called out for being a parler refugee when your account is like a year old at this point 😆
@blight @angdraug @aral @hansvurst some people just have a low IQ. it's okay. we'll give them their weighted blankets.

@hansvurst @aral

"In fact, concerning these larger combined derivatives, the EUPL works exactly like the LGPL. The difference is that the EUPL is less permissive than the LGPL, which authorises distribution of larger works under any licence."

They say that EUPL is "copyleft" but not "viral". IANAL but that means you can wrap EUPL in proprietary code, just modifications to EUPL code needs to be published? If so, I'll stick with AGPLv3.

@hansvurst @aral Of course dual-licencing in the meaning of EUPL *and* AGPLv3 (instead of the more common "or") might perhaps work. Then AGPLv3 would bring "viral" and EUPL the EU localization etc. But I'm worried it will be very hard to be sure the combination isn't self-contradicting.

IIUC with an "or" dual-licencing, proprietary code developers can just pick EUPL, use the code and ignore the AGPLv3 part. I'd just rather not make code for startups/corps to take advantage of.

@aral ooh. If you find that out, please let me know.

@SkinnyFeels @dimitrisk PS. EUPL has the same SaaS provision as AGPL. But they’re not compatible (AGPL says derivatives must be under AGPL, EUPL says EUPL so best option – what I’m considering – is to dual license under AGPL and EUPL going forward).

@aral that makes sense. See how it goes, can always change it, right?

@aral If it is "Good For Business" it will probably have a chilling effect on society, where many projects never get started for lack of funding and/or protection. I'd prefer a new Open Libre Software licence that explicitly protects against free riding by commerce.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!