Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What do you think about EUPL in comparison to other copyleft licences?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–18 of 18 posts

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about EUPL in comparison to other copyleft licences?

#11

Post by palata »

marc136 wrote: post #7
palata wrote: post #3

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?

I'm not sure if I understand correctly. 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…

> For me, it is mostly about "sharing the code" as in

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?

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about EUPL in comparison to other copyleft licences?

#12

Post by brudgers »

palata wrote: post #10
brudgers wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not choose it for two reasons: 1. The bad actor case: On my side of the equation there is no practical difference between licenses. Enforcing one or the other has the same legal costs…either I lawyer up and enforce whatever license I used or I don’t. 2. The good actor case: When users are unfamiliar with a license they are less likely to use it (or in a business context less likely to be allowed to use it). B…

> 2. The good actor case: When users are unfamiliar with a license they are less likely to use it (or in a business context less likely to be allowed to use it). Businesses typically don't want copyleft because they don't want to share anything (even if that is counter-productive). If more codebases used copyleft, I'm convinced that more businesses would know how to deal with it. My second thought here is that I don'…

I am telling you why I wouldn't use an obscure license if I wanted to share my work.

When I don't want to share my work, I simply keep my work to myself.

You are indeed free to choose whatever license you want.

I have zero issues with that.

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about EUPL in comparison to other copyleft licences?

#13

Post by palata »

brudgers wrote: post #12
palata wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. The good actor case: When users are unfamiliar with a license they are less likely to use it (or in a business context less likely to be allowed to use it). Businesses typically don't want copyleft because they don't want to share anything (even if that is counter-productive). If more codebases used copyleft, I'm convinced that more businesses would know how to deal with it. My second thought here is that I don'…

I am telling you why I wouldn't use an obscure license if I wanted to share my work. When I don't want to share my work, I simply keep my work to myself. You are indeed free to choose whatever license you want. I have zero issues with that.

Sorry, I didn't want to sound aggressive at all :-). Of course that's your choice. I was just sharing my preference.

In my experience, many developers tend to prefer the licenses that are better for their company. And I don't get that. They should prefer the licenses that are better for themselves. If my company is forced to use a GPL library because there is no alternative, then I get to open source my code. That's great for me personally! Conversely, if I get to publish code I wrote in my company, if I manage to do it under a copyleft license, it helps other developers open source their code.

I understand that GPL/LGPL maybe scary in some situations (how do you deal with LGPL in a proprietary iOS app?), but I haven't found a single example where MPLv2 doesn't work. I don't see a reason to use a permissive license, MPLv2 is always fine.

As a developer, it's never good for me to help a company get permissive code for free.

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about EUPL in comparison to other copyleft licences?

#14

Post by patemmschmitz »

You could add: - the EUPL, like the AGPL, covers all distribution modes (remote or SaaS...) - the EUPL includes a CDO (contributor declaration of origin) - the EUPL specifies more "realistic" liability exclusions (at a time the CRA Cyber Resilience Act is discussed it is better to face some potential issues: total liability exclusions, like in the MIT license are simply invalid). - the EUPL is compatible with other "copyleft" licenses because it allows combined derivatives to be distributed under these (without giving up fundamental obligations of sharing and reciprocity, as none of the compatible licenses is in conflict withe the EUPL on these points. - the EUPL is not "born in the USA" but is definitely not an "obscure" license. The upcoming Interoperable Europe Act states that all EU interconnected open source portals shall propose it (this is not exclusive of other licenses of course, i.e. if the GPL or AGPL is inherited). - the EUPL philosophy was recently explained in a paper "The seven pillars of Wisdom": (https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/discussion/a...) This is just a discussion paper. You are welcome!!!

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about EUPL in comparison to other copyleft licences?

#15

Post by patemmschmitz »

palata wrote: post #11
marc136 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if I understand correctly. 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…

> For me, it is mostly about "sharing the code" as in 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?

You are right, there is a "double coverage". The EUPL just states that the compatible license (applied to the combined derivative work) will prevail in case it conflicts with the EUPL. But none of the listed compatible licenses (i.e. GPL-v2 or GPL-v3) prohibit, for example, the coverage of remote/SaaS distribution: they may not impose it (SaaS loophole) but allow it. So the EUPL code inside the combined derivative will stay covered by essential EUPL obligations, including the modified code sharing in case of remote distribution, even when the combined work is globally distributed under the GPL.

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about EUPL in comparison to other copyleft licences?

#16

Post by patemmschmitz »

palata wrote: post #3

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?

For me - correct me if I'm wrong, the tivoization issue looks mostly related to what is really a "derivative" of your work (i. e. in case the level of dependency of some hardware device that uses/incoprporate your software is so high that it can be considered as a derivative). For this reason the EUPL-1.2 covers "the Work", that could be software code, ancillary data, documentation, or even hardware in so far it could be considered as a derivative.

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about EUPL in comparison to other copyleft licences?

#17

Post by patemmschmitz »

palata wrote: post #4
andris9 wrote: post #2

Nodemailer author here. I now publish all my libraries/tools (like Nodemailer) under some permissive license (MIT, MIT-0, ISC). This gives the opportunity to use such a library without issues, and the end user never knows about these tools anyway. For example if I build a OSS software and commercial software that both use such library, then it is easier to manage it under permissive license - I don't want copyleft li…

> This gives the opportunity to use such a library without issues, and the end user never knows about these tools anyway. Why not something like MPLv2 then? It does give the opportunity to use the library without issues, the only constraint (compared to e.g. MIT) being that changes to the library needs to be distributed. If you don't change it, then it's pretty much like MIT. To me, MPLv2 is superior to MIT in the se…

You are right: MPLv2 does not enforce contributing upstream. So you turn your manager into a fool (just a little bit). The MPL is probably one of the best F/OSS licenses: clear, concise, well written... But this is - hopefully - true for the EUPL as well.

Re: Ask HN: What do you think about EUPL in comparison to other copyleft licences?

#18

Post by palata »

patemmschmitz wrote: post #16
palata wrote: post #3

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?

For me - correct me if I'm wrong, the tivoization issue looks mostly related to what is really a "derivative" of your work (i. e. in case the level of dependency of some hardware device that uses/incoprporate your software is so high that it can be considered as a derivative). For this reason the EUPL-1.2 covers "the Work", that could be software code, ancillary data, documentation, or even hardware in so far it coul…

Hmm not sure. Tivoization is about distributing a product together with the source code running on it, but without giving a mean to update the software.

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.

Post reply on HN