Re: Judgement about the EUPL
> As I know (maybe I just didn't found it) there is no "final judgement" about the EUPL.
EUPL 1.1 [1] has this clause [2]:
Compatibility clause:
If the Licensee Distributes and/or Communicates Derivative Works or
copies thereof based upon both the Original Work and another work
licensed under a Compatible Licence, this Distribution and/or
Communication can be done under the terms of this Compatible Licence.
For the sake of this clause, "Compatible Licence" refers to the
licences listed in the appendix attached to this Licence. Should the
Licensee's obligations under the Compatible Licence conflict with
his/her obligations under this Licence, the obligations of the
Compatible Licence shall prevail
Appendix
"Compatible Licences" according to article 5 EUPL are:
- GNU General Public License (GNU 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
So it's hard to say that it's not DFSG-free.
> I don't know who makes this final judgement (or more generally how it is made).
The decision is generally made by the ftp masters. The easiset way to
find out is to check whether there are already packages under that
license in the archive, which I really don't know,
Greetings,
Miry
[1] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/system/files/EN/EUPL%20v.1.1%20-%20Licence.pdf
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Public_Licence#Comparison_to_other_open_source.2Ffree_software_licences
2014-02-16 17:46 GMT+01:00 Sven Bartscher <sven.bartscher@weltraumschlangen.de>:
> The last post to discussions about the EUPL are now five years old.
> As I know (maybe I just didn't found it) there is no "final judgement" about the EUPL.
> I don't know who makes this final judgement (or more generally how it is made). But I think it's time to make it.
> So basically I'm looking for a decision that is clear enough to put on the wiki page about DFSGLicenses[1]
>
> Kind regards
> Sven Bartscher
>
> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Public_Domain
Reply to: