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

Re: EUPL draft



On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:23:33 +0100 Rich Walker wrote:

> Ivo Danihelka <ivo@danihelka.net> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:35 +0200, Ales Cepek wrote:
> >> I would like to ask,
> >> if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible
> >> with the Debian Social Contract.

Oh my goodness, another license!  :-(
Someone should really explain people that license proliferation is a Bad
Thing(TM)...

> >
> > Good question. The EUPL draft is available at
> > http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2623/5585#eupl
> >
> > Now is time to propose changes.
> 
> Here is the text of the license.
> 
> I have run it through pdftotext, and then formatted for email reading.

Thanks!
My comments follow.
Short summary: I think this license does *not* comply with the DFSG.


> 
> Page breaks have been retained.
> 
> EUPL v.01-EN
> 
> European Union Public Licence
> V.01
> EUPL © the European Community 2005
[...]
> The Source Code: the human-readable form of the Work which is required
> in order to make modifications to it.

Very ambiguous: many different forms of the same work may satisfy this
definition, which one is to be taken as "Source Code"?

> 
> The Executable Code: any code which has generally been compiled and
> which is meant to be interpreted by a computer as a program.

Limited in scope: does a PDF file qualify as "Executable Code"?
I don't think so. It often doesn't qualify as the above-defined "Source
Code", either.
Let's see if this turns up to be problematic...

> 
> The Licensor: the physical or legal person that distributes and/or
> communicates the Work under the Licence.

Weird: anyone who distributes is a "Licensor"!
This could have 'interesting' consequences: wait and see...

[...]
> © European Community 2005

Whoah! The copyright holder of the license text is the... the whole
European Community!  8-|
That seems pretty broad... It sounds like "Copyright (c) The United
States of America"!   :-/
Are we sure it does make sense?

[...]
> 2. Scope of the rights granted by the Licence
> The Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free,
> non-exclusive, sub-licensable licence to do the following,
[...]
> sub-license rights in the Work or copies thereof.

This probably addresses my concerns about the "Licensor"=distributor
weirdness...

[...]
> In the countries where moral rights apply, the Licensor
> waives his right to exercise his moral right to the extent allowed by
> law in order to make effective the licence of the economic rights here
> above listed.

This seems to be a legal no-op, as moral rights are inalienable.
But it could be useful in case the law changes...

> 
> 3. Communication of the Source Code
> The Licensor may provide the Work either in its Source Code form, or
> as Executable Code.

Mmmh: may the Licensor (that is: anyone who distributes!) provide the
"Work" in a form that is neither "Source Code", nor "Executable Code"
(e.g. a PDF file)?
Or is that forbidden?

> If the Work is provided as Executable Code, the
> Licensor provides in addition a machine-readable copy of the Source
> Code of the Work along with each copy of the Work that the Licensor
> distributes or indicates, in a notice following the copyright notice
> attached to the Work, a repository where the Source Code is easily and
> freely accessible for as long as the Licensor continues to distribute
> and/or communicate the Work.

Remember this clause for later discussion...

[...]
> The Licensee must cause any
> Derivative Work to carry prominent notices stating that he modified
> the work,

OK.

> indicating the name and contact information of the
> Contributor.

Hey! Cannot a "Contributor" be anonymous?
Does this pass the Dissident Test?

[...]
> Provision of Source Code: When distributing and/or communicating
> copies of the Work, the Licensee will provide a machine-readable copy
> of the Source Code or indicates a website where this Source will be
> easily and freely available for as long as the Licensee continues to
> distribute and/or communicate the Work.

Since anyone who distributes is a "Licensor", why repeating something
that has already been stated above (the clause I marked as 'remember
this')?
Moreover, now it speaks about websites and thus is not
technology-neutral.
When the web is history, "Licensees" will be unable to indicate a
website (I don't know when this will happen, but sooner or later the WWW
will be obsoleted by something else...)

[...]
> 10. Acceptance of the Licence 
> The provisions of this Licence can be accepted by clicking on an icon
> "I agree" placed under the bottom of a window displaying the text of
> this Licence or by affirming consent in any other similar way, in
> accordance with rules of applicable law. Clicking on that icon
> indicates your clear and irrevocable acceptance of this Licence and
> all of its terms and conditions. Similarly, the creation by You of a
> Derivative Work or the Distribution and/or Communication by You of the
> Work or copies thereof indicates your clear and irrevocable acceptance
> of this Licence and all of its terms and conditions.

A non-mandatory "I agree" button?
How is this useful?

> 
> 11. Information to the public
[...]
> In case of any Distribution and/or Communication of the Work by You
> (for example, by offering to download the Work from a website) the
> distribution channel or media (for example, the website) must provide
> the following information to the public: 
> 
> your name, as new Licensor providing the Work, 
> 
> your geographic and electronic address, 
> 
> where the Licensor is registered in a trade or similar public
> register,
> 
> the trade register in which the Licensor is entered and his
> registration number,

Huh?
Maybe even the telephone number of the Licensor's girlfriend or
boyfriend?
This really fails the Dissident Test!
And seems to be a significant restriction for redistribution (DFSG#1).

[...]
> 14. Jurisdiction
> Any litigation resulting from the interpretation of this license,
> arising between the European Commission, as a Licensor, and any
> Licensee, will be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of
> Justice, as laid down in article 238 of the Treaty establishing the
> European Community. Any litigation arising between parties other than
> the European Commission, and resulting from the interpretation of this
> license, will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
> competent court:
> 
>  · where the Licensor resides or conducts its primary business, if
> Licensor resides or conducts its primary business inside the European
> Union;
> 
>  · where the Licensee resides or conducts its primary business if
> Licensor resides or conducts its primary business outside the European
> Union;
[...]
> · where the Licensor resides or conducts its primary business, if both
> the Licensor and the Licensee reside or conduct their primary business
> outside the European Union.
[...]

This is a choice of venue that is a significant restriction for
redistribution (DFSG#1) and is also formulated in such a way to
discriminate against persons who reside or conduct their primary
business outside the European Union (they get worse venues as
"Licensees", with respect to EU citizens, whenever the "Licensor" is
outside the EU). This fails DFSG#5.



-- 
    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
......................................................................
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgp0u3jVZg5cw.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: