I need a software license similar in spirit to GPL without the stench of RMS floating in the air.
-
I need a software license similar in spirit to GPL without the stench of RMS floating in the air.
-
I need a software license similar in spirit to GPL without the stench of RMS floating in the air.
@petrillic Would the EUPL-1.2 work? It's a copyleft license, similar in spirit to the GPL, but without RMS.
-
@petrillic Would the EUPL-1.2 work? It's a copyleft license, similar in spirit to the GPL, but without RMS.
@algernon somehow had missed this. Going to read with my lawyer glasses on.
I stole them from some nerd when I lived in DC.
-
@petrillic Would the EUPL-1.2 work? It's a copyleft license, similar in spirit to the GPL, but without RMS.
@algernon @petrillic that license looks interesting but it would be good to see an AGPL equivalent - do you know if one exists?
-
@algernon @petrillic that license looks interesting but it would be good to see an AGPL equivalent - do you know if one exists?
@imcdowall @petrillic As far as I understand the EUPL, it is closer to the AGPL than to regular GPL.
The copyleft clause in section 5 covers both distribution and communication of original & derived works. It defines communication of works in section 1 as:
— ‘Distribution’ or ‘Communication’: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, online or offline, copies of the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities at the disposal of any other natural or legal person.
So that makes it very AGPL-like, in my reading. But: I'm a mere nerd, not a lawyer.
-
@imcdowall @petrillic As far as I understand the EUPL, it is closer to the AGPL than to regular GPL.
The copyleft clause in section 5 covers both distribution and communication of original & derived works. It defines communication of works in section 1 as:
— ‘Distribution’ or ‘Communication’: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, online or offline, copies of the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities at the disposal of any other natural or legal person.
So that makes it very AGPL-like, in my reading. But: I'm a mere nerd, not a lawyer.
@algernon @petrillic ah, that could well do it. I'm also not a lawyer although with some experience of software licenses but I missed that nuance.
Thanks -
@imcdowall @petrillic As far as I understand the EUPL, it is closer to the AGPL than to regular GPL.
The copyleft clause in section 5 covers both distribution and communication of original & derived works. It defines communication of works in section 1 as:
— ‘Distribution’ or ‘Communication’: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, online or offline, copies of the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities at the disposal of any other natural or legal person.
So that makes it very AGPL-like, in my reading. But: I'm a mere nerd, not a lawyer.
@algernon@come-from.mad-scientist.club @imcdowall@mastodon.social @petrillic@hachyderm.io EUPL is an odd license, because it has strong copyleft requirements like that and then a relicensing clause which just allows you to relicense to a weaker copyleft license (like GPLv2-only, GPLv3-only, or even any version of the GNU GPL via CeCILL v2 (because it allows relicensing to CeCILL v2 which itself allows relicensing to any version of the GNU GPL)) and bypass those requirements entirely.
I'd just use the AGPL. What is actually wrong with it anyway?
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
