On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:48:08 +0100 Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/16/2014 08:34 PM, Sven Bartscher wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:07:55 +0100 > > Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 02/16/2014 07:04 PM, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > >>> So it's hard to say that it's not DFSG-free. > >> > >> Is it? > >> > >> Piana writes: > >> > >> "Moreover, being a purportedly strong copyleft license, it would be > >> outright (and both ways) incompatible with the most widely used copyleft > >> license, the GNU GPL, and very likely incompatible with many others. > >> This was well understood by the drafters, who decided to use a clever > >> solution to avoid the EUPL being cut off from software development in > >> combination with a large share of the software publicly available." > > > > From which thread is that? If it's from the discussion about the draft, > > it's most probably outdated. > > Sorry, that quote is from the "Compilation of briefing notes" I linked > to in my previous mail: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/02/msg00018.html > > > The EUPL 1.1 is explicitly compatible with the GPLv2 and some other licenses. > > "Don't worry, the check is in the mail." > > The EUPL author says EUPL 1.2 will be compatible with GPLv3 (page 29): > > > Appendix > > “Compatible Licences” according to Article 5 EUPL are: > - GNU General Public License (GPL) v. 2, v. 3 > - GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) v. 3 > - Open Software License (OSL) v. 2.1, v. 3.0 > - Eclipse Public License (EPL) v. 1.0 > - Cecill v. 2.0, v. 2.1 > - Mozilla Public Licence (MPL) v. 2 > - GNU Lesser General Public Licence (LGPL) v. 2.1, v. 3 > - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike v. 3.0 Unported (CC BY > SA 3.0) for works other than software > - European Union Public Licence (EUPL), any version as from v. 1.1 > > The European Commission may: > - update this Appendix to later versions of the above licences without > producing a new > version of the EUPL. > - extend this Appendix to new licences providing the rights granted in > Article 2 of this > Licence and protecting the covered Source Code from exclusive > appropriation. I now read the original text of the license and have to admit my prior statement wasn't exactly right. You're only allowed to license under a compatible license (stated in the Appendix) if another work you're working with enforces you to do so. By default you must keep the EUPL. > > > If it is compatible with everything, is it then really compatible with > anything? > > To me it looks like a division by zero. I'm not a native English speaker and having difficulties to understand clearly (without ambiguities) what you want to express with these two sentences. Sorry, could you try to explain more clearly what you want to say? > > //Erik > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > Archive: [🔎] 530115F8.9000603@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 530115F8.9000603@gmail.com >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature