Open Source Licenses: EUPL got OSI Approval, but Still Doesn’t Show Up
The Open Source Initiative board, after visiting the European Commission, has finally approved the European Union Public license on the 4th of March.
The EUPL 1.1 – the revisited version of the EUPL 1.0 including recommended modifications resulting from the OSI discussion – is supported by the EUPL community. Stakeholders can share opinions and pose questions through the EUPL forums and blog.
Martin Michlmayr, OSI’s board member and FOSSBazaar Community Manager, said:
one new license is bound to be of true value in the near future: the EUPL [European Union Public License]. For the first time we’d have a license available in all European languages and valid everywhere, that is, all translations have been legally scrutinized. Also of practical value is that EUPL code can be converted to GPL code.
Bruce Perens, original author of the open source definition, discussing around the growing number of open source licenses said that four should be enough, and EUPL was not in his list.
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz – director for European institution studies at Unisys and one of the writers of the EUPL license – thinks that Bruce is missing an important point here, since the EUPL exists in 22 linguistic versions and all versions have equal value. I believe he is right, but he is also missing an important point.
The EUPL is missing to attract attention, how results also from the small number of articles. Writing biased comparison between EUPL and GPLv3 can’t help, in this respect. GPLv3 is the fifth most chosen license in the open-source community, even if it is controversial its take over, and AGPLv3 adoption is also growing.
Roberto Galoppini, and 
P-E Schmitz are discussing.
Open Source mobile edition 6:22 pm on March 20, 2009 Permalink
[…] (Nathan White has a giant version of this Tower of Babel image on his Shepherd the Flock blog.) Roberto Galloppini writes from Rome that the Open Source Initiative approved the new license on March 4, but complains it has yet to […]
P-E Schmitz 5:59 pm on March 21, 2009 Permalink
Hi Roberto,
Publishing legal instruments with equal value in all EU languages and letting European courts work with it, is really “business as usual” for the European Institutions: Community Law counts million pages, valid in 22 or 23 languages. In case of uncertainty, national courts may ask the European Court of Justice to clarify. It is a simple fact that the GPL V2 and V3 (relative) failure is that FSF was unable to deal with linguistic diversity (that they consider as a major risk; it is true that they do not benefit from a supra-national court to help). Having said that, the EUPL has other merits: the license complies with European flavour of copyright, information to consumer, warranty and liability. The most important however, is that the intention of EUPL promoters is not to compete with the GPL or any other license. The objective is long term: to bring more administrations to license their source. We are at the early beginning of this, but there are currently substantial move in this direction and several Member States consider policies to license under EUPL. Last, the EUPL has a compatibility list (with GPLV2 and other copyleft licenses). This is also unique: it would be interesting to try solving license proliferation through “mutual recognition” between a club of equivalent licenses, sharing the same compatibility list: this would also provide more freedom to developers. Who has comment on this idea? It is a fact – unfortunately – that “compatibility” is seen by the FSF as “compatibility in the one-way direction of GPL, GPLv3 and AGPLv3”. The reverse situation is not even imagined by the FSF, (and by the way, their current web site ignores totally the EUPL – remember Mahatma Gandhi: “First they ignored us…”). A last word about the “biased” comparison I did between the EUPL and GPLv3 during the EOLE event in Paris: Of course you can say it was biased! (since I am a EUPL advocate), but please do not take my comparison as an attack “against” the GPLv3: I just report facts: GPLv3 is about 3 times longer, is full of technical details, is complex (even for a lawyer) and as it is officially valid in English only it may not be the most persuasive license for a German or French administration. Could anyone object? Now if you are happy with GPLv3 and AGPLv3 no problems, go on!
Roberto Galoppini 9:55 pm on March 21, 2009 Permalink
Hi Patrice-Emmanuel,
I am glad you joined the conversation. I think that having a license (EUPL or not) translated in all European languages is a great thing.
What I object to the EC is that you decided to go your way, instead of participating the GPLv3 process, managed with a public and transparent consultation.
What I object to you is your adversarial approach. I believe that opening to FSF licenses is your concern, since you are trying to convince European public administrations to use the EUPL.
Show them that is convenient, that they can still stand on the shoulders of giants, and try harder to consider GPL, and software licensed under the GPL, as your best friend, not a foe.
My two European cents
Open Source mobile edition 3:38 pm on March 24, 2009 Permalink
[…] drew some interesting reaction and this follow up question. What does Europe have against GPLv3? Roberto Galoppini, who first drew my attention to the issue, drew a response to his post from Patrice-Emmanuel […]
Il 4 marzo 2009 l’EUPL è stata riconosiuta dall’OSI (Open Source Iniziative) come licenza “Open Source”. A che punto siamo oggi? 4:24 pm on November 25, 2009 Permalink
[…] Tuttavia, la EUPL è licenza relativamente recente e non può contare sull’avviamento della GPL o di altre licenza assestatesi come “standard” per i software open source. Pertanto l’EUPL appare destinata a faticare un po’ di più prima che si diffonda a pieno regime. […]