Is the EUPL v1.0 (European Union Public Licence) acceptable in Fedora

[Caolán McNamara]

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.

[Tom Callaway]

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

[Luis Villa]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; 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

[Tom Callaway]

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(a)redhat.com&gt; 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