Re: Judgement about the EUPL
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 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
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.bartsc...@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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cafotxvomzx1z1jctddetncqg5t7i_1mv8ppqba5eayqvkq7...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Judgement about the EUPL
Hi Sven. On 02/16/2014 05:46 PM, Sven Bartscher wrote: 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 Here's some materials from the Legal Affairs Committee 09-07-2013 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/juri/events.html?id=workshops WORKSHOP ON LEGAL ASPECTS OF FREE AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE Poster http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201306/20130603ATT67234/20130603ATT67234EN.PDF Programme http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201307/20130708ATT69348/20130708ATT69348EN.pdf Publications Compilation of briefing notes http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201307/20130708ATT69346/20130708ATT69346EN.pdf In the Compilation of briefing notes you find the EUPL author Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz describing the license. I am however uncertain if the final draft of EUPL v1.2 was ever authorised/published by the College of Commissioners. You also find a contribution by Carlo Piana and his analysis of EUPL (page 38): 2.3 The case of EUPL, relicensing permissions and the exceptions Finally, there is a video clip on youtube of Eben Moglen's speech at the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI1CoeqyD5o Hope it helps. //Erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/53010910.8060...@gmail.com
Re: Judgement about the EUPL
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. //Erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/53010c8b.7000...@gmail.com
Re: Judgement about the EUPL
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:07:55 +0100 Erik Josefsson erik.hjalmar.josefs...@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. The EUPL 1.1 is explicitly compatible with the GPLv2 and some other licenses. //Erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/53010c8b.7000...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Judgement about the EUPL
On 02/16/2014 08:34 PM, Sven Bartscher wrote: On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:07:55 +0100 Erik Josefsson erik.hjalmar.josefs...@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. If it is compatible with everything, is it then really compatible with anything? To me it looks like a division by zero. //Erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/530115f8.9000...@gmail.com
Re: Judgement about the EUPL
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:48:08 +0100 Erik Josefsson erik.hjalmar.josefs...@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.josefs...@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-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/530115f8.9000...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Official judgements and rationales on freedom of a work for Debian (was: Judgement about the EUPL)
Sven Bartscher sven.bartsc...@weltraumschlangen.de writes: 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. The judgement of whether a work is suitable for Debian is the responsibility of the ftpmaster team. This forum is a resource for the Debian ftpmaster team, allowing interested parties to discuss what legal issues may affect the entry of (or continuing presence of) a work in Debian. But TTBOMK nothing here is to be taken as a “final judgement”. I don't know of any better way of reliably divining the will of the ftpmaster team, without submitting the work for entry to Debian. Nor do I know how to reliably divine, even *after* a decision is made, the rationale of the decisions the ftpmaster team make on the freedom of a work. -- \ “Imagine a world without hypothetical situations.” —anonymous | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/85txby667u.fsf...@benfinney.id.au
Re: Judgement about the EUPL
On 02/16/2014 09:21 PM, Sven Bartscher wrote: Sorry, could you try to explain more clearly what you want to say? Here is a slide (number 16) from Piana being more clear them me :-) | EUPL incompatible with GPL v.3 | * Why? Because of non reciprocity of compatibility? | * No such a thing, strong copyleft by design must be incompatible | ** GPL v.3 made by design incompatible with v.2 (but not with v.2+) | * Especially, EUPL is recessive | * GPL → EUPL → weak copyleft loophole http://epfsug.eu/wws/arc/epfsug/2012-07/msg00017/brussels_parliament_2012-2.pdf It was presented at an EPFSUG meeting where the license for AT4AM was discussed (before it was decided): http://epfsug.eu/blog-entry/delivering-vision-at4am-all Best regards. //Erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5301bef2.7040...@gmail.com
Re: Judgement about the EUPL
Just in case anyone is interested, I've attached the diff between versions 1.0 and 1.1. You can also read it online [1] Greetings, Miry [1] http://pastebin.com/f64abf600 --- EUPL-1.0.txt 2009-01-23 13:09:40.0 +0100 +++ EUPL-1.1.txt 2009-01-23 13:15:14.0 +0100 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -European Union Public Licence (EUPL) v1.0 +European Union Public Licence (EUPL) v1.1 Copyright (c) 2007 The European Community 2007 @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ Licensor (as defined below) has placed the following notice immediately following the copyright notice for the Original Work: - Licensed under the EUPL V.1.0 + Licensed under the EUPL V.1.1 or has expressed by any other mean his willingness to license under the EUPL. @@ -85,7 +85,8 @@ o Distribution and/or Communication: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, on-line or off-line, copies of -the Work at the disposal of any other natural or legal person. +the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities +at the disposal of any other natural or legal person. 2. Scope of the rights granted by the Licence The Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non- @@ -145,7 +146,9 @@ o Copyleft clause: If the Licensee distributes and/or communicates copies of the Original Works or Derivative Works based upon the Original Work, this Distribution and/or -Communication will be done under the terms of this Licence. +Communication will be done under the terms of this Licence or +of a later version of this Licence unless the Original Work is +expressly distributed only under this version of the Licence. The Licensee (becoming Licensor) cannot offer or impose any additional terms or conditions on the Work or Derivative Work that alter or restrict the terms of the Licence. @@ -179,9 +182,9 @@ he/she brings to the Work are owned by him/her or licensed to him/ her and that he/she has the power and authority to grant the Licence. - Each time You, as a Licensee, receive the Work, the original - Licensor and subsequent Contributors grant You a licence to their - contributions to the Work, under the terms of this Licence. + Each time You accept the Licence, the original Licensor and + subsequent Contributors grant You a licence to their contributions + to the Work, under the terms of this Licence. 7. Disclaimer of Warranty The Work is a work in progress, which is continuously improved by @@ -240,9 +243,8 @@ to download the Work from a remote location) the distribution channel or media (for example, a website) must at least provide to the public the information requested by the applicable law regarding - the identification and address of the Licensor, the Licence and the - way it may be accessible, concluded, stored and reproduced by the - Licensee. + the Licensor, the Licence and the way it may be accessible, + concluded, stored and reproduced by the Licensee. 12. Termination of the Licence The Licence and the rights granted hereunder will terminate @@ -260,11 +262,14 @@ applicable law, this will not affect the validity or enforceability of the Licence as a whole. Such provision will be construed and/or reformed so as necessary to make it valid and enforceable. - The European Commission may put into force translations and/or - binding new versions of this Licence, so far this is required and - reasonable. New versions of the Licence will be published with a - unique version number. The new version of the Licence becomes - binding for You as soon as You become aware of its publication. + The European Commission may publish other linguistic versions and/or + new versions of this Licence, so far this is required and + reasonable, without reducing the scope of the rights granted by the + Licence. New versions of the Licence will be published with a unique + version number. + All linguistic versions of this Licence, approved by the European + Commission, have identical value. Parties can take advantage of the + linguistic version of their choice. 14. Jurisdiction Any litigation resulting from the interpretation of this License,
Re: Judgement about the EUPL
Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org asked: was the EUPL[1] previously reviewed already? I found this answer at http://lists.debian.org/cgi-bin/search?query=eupl+draft It appears to have a shed-load of problems, but the EUPL is trivially upgradable to a number of good free software licences (section 5 and appendix), so what's the point in reviewing this EU-funded waste of brainpower? Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Judgement about the EUPL
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:36:02 +0100 Miriam Ruiz wrote: EUPL v1.1 full text: Thanks Miriam! European Union Public Licence (EUPL) v1.1 Copyright (c) 2007 The European Community 2007 [...] 5. Obligations of the Licensee The grant of the rights mentioned above is subject to some restrictions and obligations imposed on the Licensee. Those obligations are the following: [...] o 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: * General Public License (GPL) v. 2 [...] Without looking at the rest, I think that the quoted parts should be enough to (artificially) create GPLv2-compatibility. Moreover, since combining with GPLv2'ed code allows one to distribute the whole resulting work under the GPLv2, I think this trick should be considered enough to turn any EUPL'ed work into one that complies with the DFSG. Or am I wrong? Usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpesd3Ed8sVS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Judgement about the EUPL
Dear debian-legal, was the EUPL[1] previously reviewed already? Is there something in it that concerns acceptability and GPL compatibility (which was explictly intended) like choice of venue? Kind regards, Philipp Kern [1] http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl/ -- PDF-only as it looks but well. -- .''`. Philipp KernDebian Developer : :' : http://philkern.de Release Assistant `. `' xmpp:p...@0x539.de Stable Release Manager `-finger pkern/k...@db.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Judgement about the EUPL
EUPL v1.1 full text: European Union Public Licence (EUPL) v1.1 Copyright (c) 2007 The European Community 2007 Preamble The attached European Union Public Licence (EUPL) has been elaborated in the framework of IDABC, a European Community programme, with the aim to promote Interoperable Delivery of European eGovernment Services to public Administrations, Business and Citizens. IDABC continues and deepens the previous IDA (Interchange of data between Administrations) programme. Software applications, such as CIRCA, a groupware for sharing documents within closed user groups, IPM, a tool helping administrations to close the gap between them and their stakeholders by providing a powerful and yet easy to use tool for direct consultation through the Internet, or eLink, a tool comprising the identification of remote services and the provision of reliable and secure messaging services over a network infrastructure, have been developed within the framework of the IDA or IDABC programmes. The European Community, on the basis of the contracts that permitted the development of such software, is owner of all Intellectual Property Rights and consequently of the source code and executables. Such IDA or IDABC developed tools are used by public administrations outside the European Institutions, under a licence delivered by the European Commission, which is the Institution acting on behalf of the European Community since the copyright for those tools belongs to the European Community. For some time, interest has increased in the publication of the software source code under a licence that would not limit access and modifications to the source code. The original EUPL Licence was established for such software, as corresponding to the IDABC objectives. The Licence is written in general terms and could therefore be used for derivative works, for other works and by other licensors. The utility of this Licence is to reinforce legal interoperability by adopting a common framework for pooling public sector software. This preamble is not a part of the EUPL Licence. Licence This European Union Public Licence (the EUPL) applies to the Work or Software (as defined below) which is provided under the terms of this Licence. Any use of the Work, other than as authorised under this Licence is prohibited (to the extent such use is covered by a right of the copyright holder of the Work). The Original Work is provided under the terms of this Licence when the Licensor (as defined below) has placed the following notice immediately following the copyright notice for the Original Work: Licensed under the EUPL V.1.1 or has expressed by any other mean his willingness to license under the EUPL. 1. Definitions In this Licence, the following terms have the following meaning: o The Licence: this Licence. o The Original Work or the Software: the software distributed and/or communicated by the Licensor under this Licence, available as Source Code and also as Executable Code as the case may be. o Derivative Works: the works or software that could be created by the Licensee, based upon the Original Work or modifications thereof. This Licence does not define the extent of modification or dependence on the Original Work required in order to classify a work as a Derivative Work; this extent is determined by copyright law applicable in the country mentioned in Article 15. o The Work: the Original Work and/or its Derivative Works. o The Source Code: the human-readable form of the Work which is the most convenient for people to study and modify. o The Executable Code: any code which has generally been compiled and which is meant to be interpreted by a computer as a program. o The Licensor: the natural or legal person that distributes and/or communicates the Work under the Licence. o Contributor(s): any natural or legal person who modifies the Work under the Licence, or otherwise contributes to the creation of a Derivative Work. o The Licensee or You: any natural or legal person who makes any usage of the Software under the terms of the Licence. o Distribution and/or Communication: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, on-line or off-line, copies of the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities at the disposal of any other natural or legal person. 2. Scope of the rights granted by the Licence The Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non- exclusive, sub-licensable
