I had never heard about it, but it seems nice! Am I right that it is really about "sharing" the code and not so much about "allowing to modify", in the sense that it does not prevent tivoization? Or did I miss that part?
That's the difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3: if you buy an Android smartphone, you are entitled to receive the Linux source code for that smartphone. But maybe there is a secure boot and it is impossible for you to flash an updated version of Linux.
GPLv3 says that not only you should receive the source code, but also instructions about how to flash your own version of the covered software.
It feels like EUPL is closer to GPLv2 in that sense, right? Which is fine, but it's good to know.
For me, it is mostly about "sharing the code" as in: I put it somewhere and anyone who wants can use it. But if they adapt or remix it, they should also use a free license (ideally contribute back to my project).
> in the sense that it does not prevent tivoization?
I'm not sure, but I guess it does not protect against tivoization because if I were to distribute an executable or library, that could be used on a blackbox with proprietary code without them requiring to open their own code.
Sure, I did not express it correctly. I really just wondered about the tivoization.
> But if they adapt or remix it, they should also use a free license
I think that the code has to stay EUPL, but if you merge it into, say, a bigger GPL project, then the whole project can count as GPL. But the EUPL code inside stays EUPL, right?