[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: EUPL draft

OK.  Problems found.  Please forward these to the appropriate authority, since 
I couldn't work out how to.

Distribution requirements require the provision of way too much information 
about the licensor.  "Geographic and electronic address"?   Come on.  
"Geographic address" is a matter of privacy, most certainly.

I don't like the jurisdiction requirements, either.  They appear biased 
towards Europeans and against everyone else.

The attribution right should be restricted to *accurate* notices, which it 
isn't.  I raised this issue with the Apache License and they fixed it.

There's some really odd language in which it seems to imply that distribution 
makes you a Licensor, which I don't think is right at all.

Everything else appears DFSG-free, though I may have missed something.  There 
are some other oddities, though.

It requires that in the case of distribution you provide "the different 
technical steps to follow to conclude the License".  But the License is 
accepted upon exercise of otherwise prohibited rights, as with all normal 
free software licenses, as it says in section 10.  What's up with that?

The definition of Source Code is substantially worse than the GPL's 

The use of "website" in "Provision of Source Code" is too specific and not 

It's a bad example of license proliferation, because it's a new, 
GPL-incompatible copyleft license.

Reply to: