> the EUPL could therefore be described as an “affero-like” licence (AGPLv3).
> The EUPL covers SaaS (Software as a Service): if an internet service provider modifies the licensed software to distribute online services (as Google does), this is “software distribution”.
https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/ne...
Does it have the equivalent "anti-Tivoization" requirement of GPLv3?
I found Linus Torvalds' arguments for GPLv2 (vs v3) very compelling, but the SaaS loophole to contributing back seems sort of absurd. Torvalds doesn't get his code changes either.. so I feel he's likely also not thrilled. I'd love to find something that's effectively AGPLv2 (and not v3)
EDIT:
Here:
Nevermind .. it seems to have bizarre relicensing loopholes..
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2
Seems a bit insane - esp the two step relicense :
> The EUPL allows relicensing to GPLv2 only and GPLv3 only
So I guess you just relicense to GPLv2 and then do whatever you want
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_Lice...
> In the Free Software Foundation's judgment, the added requirement in section 2(d) of Affero GPL v1 made it incompatible with the otherwise nearly identical GPLv2. That is to say, one cannot distribute a single work formed by combining components covered by each license.
> By contrast, the GPLv3 and GNU AGPLv3 licenses include clauses (in section 13 of each license) that together achieve a form of mutual compatibility for the two licenses.
Maybe what I'm asking doesn't make sense. B/c it requires for for instance GPL to include the ability to be restricted further by the no-SaaS clause. The GPL only allows for AGPLv3. It's explicit
> — ‘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.