Technology

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

And next question: Isn't that what the AGPL does but the specific variant of the EUPL they picked for their reticulum project doesn't even do?

Edit: And furthermore, it's no even as strict as the GPL because everyone is allowed to redistribute it under the terms of the LGPL?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 1 point 3 days ago (3 children)

Reticulum seems to be licensed EUPL 1.2, which includes the SaaS provision.

everyone is allowed to redistribute it under the terms of the LGPL

I think maybe you misunderstand how cross-licensing works under EUPL. When you cross-license into a weaker copyleft like the LGPL, the stronger provisions in the EUPL still apply and prevail.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Isn't both exactly the other way round?

The license (EUPL-1.2) specifically talks about redistributing either the source, or executable files. (see definition of original work, also distribution.) Nowhere do they mention a service running the work comes with any kinds of obligations? I just can't find any single sentence in the license text covering SaaS...

Both "Copyleft clause" and "Provision of source code" are pretty clear as well. It's only about distributing copies of the work. Not running it and providing it as a service.

And regarding the compatible licenses, they say the other one wins. At least regarding the "obligations". However that's defined and whether it's the licensor's or licensee's obligations:

Should the Licensee's obligations under the Compatible Licence conflict with
his/her obligations under this Licence, the obligations of the Compatible
Licence shall prevail.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child)

I just can't find any single sentence in the license text covering SaaS.

SaaS is covered by the following fragment (emphasized by me below) which was added since version 1.1 to the last paragraph of Article 1:

‘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.

regarding the compatible licenses, they say the other one wins.

If you combine the original work (licensed EUPL) with another work (licensed under weaker terms, but only applicable to one of the explicitly listed licenses), and there's a conflict of obligations for the combined result, the terms of the lesser license prevail.

If there's no conflict or the other license is silent, the stronger terms prevail (EUPL).

The original work always remains under the stronger terms (EUPL).

Hope this clears it up.

PS: I think maybe I understand the confusion. In the earlier comment I was talking about cross-licensing. That means making the software available under two licenses. That's something that can only be done by the copyright holder.

What you're describing is not cross-licensing. If someone takes EUPL software and combines it with code under one of the other listed licenses, the distribution alone of the mixed result can be done under the terms of the other license (if the obligations conflict etc. etc.)

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Hmmh. Sure, cross-licensing is an entirely different topic. That's not really what we're afraid of when for example Amazon takes some Free Software and provides it as a service. It's just that the EUPL comes with an automatic cross-licensing option regarding the distribution of combined works.

But I must say, I'm still confused. What's an "essential functionality" now? Is that supposed to be a legal term? And where are the blurry lines with that? What if I offer a hosting service that heavily relies on database operations, but doesn't expose the database itself... it's slightly abstracted away from the customer? It's internally 85% made up of some other person's work, but it builds upon that Free Software and doesn't straight provide access to it's functionalities... Is that alright? And why (not)? And why restrict it to essential functionality? Why allow non-essential functionality? And what even is that? If someone spends half a year optimizing a database, is that deemed essential? Or can a court rule the essential thing about a database project is it fetches data, and how exactly it does it, isn't essential to a database?

And I still don't see the "stronger terms prevail". That's not how that sentence goes. It's very specific in: if it's an obligation (to the licensee, btw), then the other license prevails. Not the stronger one, the other one wins any conflict. It's just concerned with the distribution of combined works, though.