European Union Public Licence | Hacker News Reader

European Union Public Licence

ec.europa.eu

25 pointspingiun8 comments

Still allows for commercial use, but mandates source be provided with all executable versions (i.e. is copyleft). It is not clear to me from the text ( https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/custom-page/... ) what happens when the source is used to start providing a service (as the AGPL protects against). From my reading, you do not need to provide the source in this case. My confusion stems from the fact that the license speaks of "communicating" the work, as well as distributing it. I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

It's defined in the license.

‘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.

Seems to me like it provides protection from TiVoization.

Edit: Most of my original comment is wrong, because I failed to note that the EUPL's compatibility clause allows the software to be relicensed under a weaker copyleft license (Eclipse Public License v1). The FSF explains: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2

EUPL v1.2 was published in 2017. It's not a new license.

---

> or otherwise making available, online or offline, copies of the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities

This part suggests that the EUPL is even stronger than AGPLv3 (Edit: incorrect, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2 ), since the "communication" doesn't have to take place over a network. Neither GPLv3 nor AGPLv3 requires the corresponding source code to be made available to a user who interacts with preinstalled (A)GPLv3-licensed software on someone else's hardware (such as a voting machine).* The EUPL would require (Edit: incorrect) the source code to be provided in this case, since the hardware is providing the user with access to the software's "essential functionalities".

The EUPL explicitly lists AGPLv3, GPLv2, GPLv3, and other popular copyleft licenses as "Compatible Licences" to clarify that EUPL-licensed software can be combined with other copyleft-licensed software.

* https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3VotingMachine

What I was trying to say is that after reading it I was still unsure. From reading your comment and the person that responded to you, I see that is a reasonable interpretation. I'm cautiously optimistic, thanks :)

Just in case you didn't see the uodate to my original comment, I corrected it because it was wrong.

The FSF has a much better analysis of the EUPL here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2

"Communication to the public" is a European Law concept that covers remote access. "Distribution" rather means the transfer of the Work (i.e. to be executed on the recipient device). The EUPL considers that the obligations of the licensee or recipient are the same in case of Communication or Distribution.

>and not formulated "to the extent allowed by the law" as in most licences designed with the legal environment of the United States in mind

Could someone explain like I am five on this? I could understand the reason they need a separate license because of language concern in different member state. But this bit loss me.

IANAL, but I think "to the extent allowed by the law" is a way to allow an overreaching (doing more than the law allows) contract to not be fully voided. It effectively allows you to specify ideals, but also means that the license my not work fully as intended.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com