TLDR: It’s compatible with other copy-left licenses like GPLv3. However, it’s available in multiple languages, which technically makes it more applicable.
I started using it for my own project. If you want a practical example: https://github.com/TimoKats/emmer
The Free Software Foundation writes the following about the EUPL 1.2 (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EUPL12):
This is a free software license. By itself, it has a copyleft comparable to the GPL’s, and incompatible with it. However, it gives recipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selected licenses, and some of those—the Eclipse Public License and the Common Public License in particular—only provide a weaker copyleft. Thus, developers can’t rely on this license to provide a strong copyleft.
The EUPL allows relicensing to GPLv2, because that is listed as one of the alternative licenses that users may convert to. It also, indirectly, allows relicensing to GPL version 3, because there is a way to relicense to the CeCILL v2, and the CeCILL v2 gives a way to relicense to any version of the GNU GPL.
To do this two-step relicensing, you need to first write a piece of code which you can license under the CeCILL v2, or find a suitable module already available that way, and add it to the program. Adding that code to the EUPL-covered program provides grounds to relicense it to the CeCILL v2. Then you need to write a piece of code which you can license under the GPLv3-or-later, or find a suitable module already available that way, and add it to the program. Adding that code to the CeCILL-covered program provides grounds to relicense it to GPLv3-or-later.
The fact that re-licensing from EUPL to GPL is so cumbersome (and therefor off-putting to independent developers), and that at the same time it allows for re-licensing to weaker copyleft (i.e. for derivative works to be more proprietary, so to speak), makes me not want to use it.
EUROPEAN UNION PUBLIC LICENCE v. 1.2
EUPL © the European Union 2007, 2016
The ‘EUPL’ in short.
I don’t know how well it holds up against gpl3 & later etc. but it’s definitely a good step forward for Europe, or so it seems.
If I can get some feedback on FOSS etc I will gladly add it to tenfingers.
tenfingers looks cool btw, hadn’t heard of it yet. Is it your project?
Yep 😋 and thanks! I’m appallingly bad at marketing so no doubt you haven’t heard about it 🥲.
I think this is a very useful license to require in new software procurements commissioned by public entities in the EU. The FSFE calls this “public money – public code” (publiccode.eu). Having a specific EUPL over just the GPL might make this look more proper, even if there aren’t many technical differences. However for personal use I would prefer using good old GPLv3.
Glad you raise this topic.
Can anybody elaborate on the practical difference between EUPL and AGPL ?
Iirc, although these both cover software as a service, EUPL is more relaxed about conversion or combination with other ‘compatible’ licenses which don’t include SaaS. So I’d be worried this keeps open a pathway for a bigger power to ‘enshittify’ my code.
Another question - has anybody experience defending rights under EUPL ?If you have software using this license, feel free to share under this post :)
There’s no fuckin drummer better than Neal Peart
*neil peart…but yes very true
I just came across repos using this in the past week. Thanks for starting a thread.
Is there a license that permits free use by humans but not LLMs?
It’s not like these licenses require approval by any regulatory board. Remember you can write “all rights reserved” on any of your copyrightable work and extend no license to anyone whatsoever, or you can voluntarily release your work into the public domain and relinquish your copyright entirely, or anything in between.
Sadly the prevailing opinion seems to be that the most strict option (all rights reserved) doesn’t protect you from LLMs.
Not a lawyer, but I don’t think so. there are licenses that extend existing licenses with that clause, like BSD NON-AI
That would be CC BY-NC-SA.
Creative Commons,
Attribution,
Non-Commercial,
Share Alike.Meaning you need to attribute to the original author, can only use it for non-commercial purposes, and must share alike (i.e., your derivation must have the same attribution rules).
Imho there should be a “Commercial only for worker co-ops” option.
Maybe we also need to consider internet content and written books by default as something not allowed to be scraped by AI. Only that which is in public domain may be scraped.
Practically all the free software licenses require some form of attribution. CC licenses are not really suited for code. I would say the GPL is way more applicable here.
