Re: EUPL draft
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 23:32 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> So this license is certainly on the right track. But we really don't
> need yet another copyleft license which is not GPL-compatible, do we?
According the Study and Comments, they have some reasons:
<quote>
Several licences, known as “Open Source” are more or less addressing the
above considerations although none was completely satisfying. Most use
specific American notions, refer to foreign applicable law and
jurisdiction, do not consider European culture or requirements and
ignore (or even forbid) official translations in EU national languages.
Some dispositions are intensively “viral”, whereas massive spreading
through linkage to other software is not the aim of the European
Commission, or contains less secure liability disclaimer clause.
Furthermore, it is the interest of the Commission, as public authority,
to keep control of its Licence and to be independent from external
author’s authorizations to update or translate dispositions in all EU
languages if needed.
</quote>
The Study into Open Source Licensing of software developed by The
European Commission:
http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2623/5585#eupl
> Do you know a contact address to which these concerns can be
> submitted?
IDABC provides online discussion forum
http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/4420
But more useful will be to post the well thought collected comments to
the officials.
Your point about strange click-through license for source-code
distribution is very important. Thanks,
--
Ivo Danihelka
Reply to: