Here's one I hadn't be aware of before, the EUPL, European Union Public Licence: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl which affects something I was considering packaging. It does have in it an explicit ...
Compatibility clause: If the Licensee Distributes ... derivative Works ... this Distribution ... can be done under the terms of this Compatible Licence.
“Compatible Licences” according to article 5 EUPL are: − General Public License (GPL) v. 2 − Open Software License (OSL) v. 2.1, v. 3.0 − Common Public License v. 1.0 − Eclipse Public License v. 1.0 − Cecill v. 2.0
C.
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 15:06 +0000, Caolán McNamara wrote:
Here's one I hadn't be aware of before, the EUPL, European Union Public Licence: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl which affects something I was considering packaging. It does have in it an explicit ...
This one is non-free, due to Article 13 (which says):
The European Commission may put into force translations and/or binding new versions of this Licence, so far [sic] this is required and reasonable. New versions of the Licence will be published with a unique version number. The new version of the Licence becomes binding for You as soon as You become aware of its publication.
This seems to mean that the following two situations can occur:
1. I'm a licensee of an EUPLv1 program. I begin using, modifying, copying, distributing etc. a verbatim copy of that program. During that time the EC issues EUPLv2, which imposes severely restrictive terms making EUPLv2 non-free. At some unclear point I might be held to have become "aware" of the new license. Suddenly my free software becomes proprietary software.
2. I create a derivative work of an EUPLv1 program by incorporating some GPLv2-licensed software. That seems to be covered by the "compatibility" clause in Article 5, which was intended to facilitate compatibility with certain copyleft licenses. However, suppose while engaged in distribution, EUPLv2 comes out and says, among possible other new restrictions, that those taking advantage of the compatibility provision (which somehow remains in force) are nonetheless held to the new restrictions once they become aware of EUPLv2. For example, I'm commercially distributing my GPLv2 work, incorporating the EUPLv1 program, and I learn that EUPLv2 prohibits commercial use. Suddenly I'm in breach of the new EUPL.
Normally, I would try to reach out to the author to resolve the issue with their license, but in this case, the author appears to be IDABC, a commission of various European governments (http://www.osor.eu/). I couldn't find any reasonable point of contact there, maybe someone reading this can?
As is, the license is non-free and has been added to the "Bad" list on the Licensing page.
~spot
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 15:06 +0000, Caolán McNamara wrote:
Here's one I hadn't be aware of before, the EUPL, European Union Public Licence: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl which affects something I was considering packaging. It does have in it an explicit ...
This one is non-free, due to Article 13 (which says):
The European Commission may put into force translations and/or binding new versions of this Licence, so far [sic] this is required and reasonable. New versions of the Licence will be published with a unique version number. The new version of the Licence becomes binding for You as soon as You become aware of its publication.
<snip>
Note that, according to discussions between the authors and OSI, EUPL 1.1 is in the pipeline, which should resolve this issue (and some others raised by OSI) such that it should be acceptable to Fedora. (Ironically, because of this clause, at that time anything released under EUPL 1.0 should also become acceptable to Fedora ;)
Luis
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 15:34 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 15:06 +0000, Caolán McNamara wrote:
Here's one I hadn't be aware of before, the EUPL, European Union Public Licence: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl which affects something I was considering packaging. It does have in it an explicit ...
This one is non-free, due to Article 13 (which says):
The European Commission may put into force translations and/or binding new versions of this Licence, so far [sic] this is required and reasonable. New versions of the Licence will be published with a unique version number. The new version of the Licence becomes binding for You as soon as You become aware of its publication.
<snip>
Note that, according to discussions between the authors and OSI, EUPL 1.1 is in the pipeline, which should resolve this issue (and some others raised by OSI) such that it should be acceptable to Fedora. (Ironically, because of this clause, at that time anything released under EUPL 1.0 should also become acceptable to Fedora ;)
Ideal, thanks for letting us know.
~spot
-
Caolán McNamara -
Luis Villa -
Tom Callaway