On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 23:32 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > So this license is certainly on the right track. But we really don't > need yet another copyleft license which is not GPL-compatible, do we?
According the Study and Comments, they have some reasons: <quote> Several licences, known as “Open Source” are more or less addressing the above considerations although none was completely satisfying. Most use specific American notions, refer to foreign applicable law and jurisdiction, do not consider European culture or requirements and ignore (or even forbid) official translations in EU national languages. Some dispositions are intensively “viral”, whereas massive spreading through linkage to other software is not the aim of the European Commission, or contains less secure liability disclaimer clause. Furthermore, it is the interest of the Commission, as public authority, to keep control of its Licence and to be independent from external author’s authorizations to update or translate dispositions in all EU languages if needed. </quote> The Study into Open Source Licensing of software developed by The European Commission: http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2623/5585#eupl > Do you know a contact address to which these concerns can be > submitted? IDABC provides online discussion forum http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/4420 But more useful will be to post the well thought collected comments to the officials. Your point about strange click-through license for source-code distribution is very important. Thanks, -- Ivo Danihelka -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
