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
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
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).
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
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
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
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
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,
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 @@
-
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
