On the EUPL

Xavi Drudis Ferran xdrudis at tinet.cat
Sat Jan 24 00:49:42 UTC 2009

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 07:58:16PM +0100, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> From a quick glance at EUPL version 1.1 it now seems that the license
> has been greatly improved since that first draft I saw. Congratulations!
> Although FSFE's legal department would require a bit more time for
> thorough analysis, the license now looks like a Free Software Copyleft
> license that is expressedly compatible to the old version of the GNU
> General Public License (GPL). For future improvement it would be good if
> compatibility to the current version of the GNU GPL were also added.

Indeed, from a quick read it looks much better than I remeber version 1.0. 

I'm not sure about the last two clauses with choice of law and jurisdiction, 
but the rest seems fine. At first I was also confused by attaching law
and jurisdiction to the Licensor, because I thought there could be many licensors,
but it was my mistake. Licensor is defined as the person passing the work, 
not the original authors or contributors, so there's reasonably only one 
for each possible dispute or litigation. It's a bit unnatural to me, though,
the fact that, if I understand it right, when I publish a program under 
EUPL 1.1 from Catalonia, and then a user in Bavaria downloads my program from 
a Welsh website and breaches the license, it is possibly me who should sue, 
since I'm the copyright holder, but I should sue the Bavarian user in Welsh courts, 
since the Licensor at stake would be the website owner offering my program.
Is that so ? 

xdrudis at tinet.cat
Signa per fer Collserola parc natural com cal

More information about the Discussion mailing list