I've therefore been interested to watch the progress of the European Union Public License (Draft here). The EU has stated its rationale (which the Free Software Foundation doesn't buy), but let me one big reason of my own.
Whether you view it as a positive or negative, the GPL leaks like a sieve. It's very tight if you're dealing with traditional software delivery mechanisms, but not if you're delivering software over the 'Net. (This is why Yahoo and Google can build their companies on open source projects without releasing the changes they make to those projects.)
This is why Fabrizio introduced the Honest Public License. He was tired of companies (not developers) freeriding on his product - not giving back cash or code. One or the other drives open source, as Marten Mickos has said.) GPLv3 also closes this "ASP loophole," and likely for the same reason.
The problem is that it tries to impose a very narrow view on a very wide world. The Linux kernel developers don't like it, nor does Linus Torvalds I've been sanguine on GPLv3, but my opinion is fast changing. I think it tries far too hard to exercise control over...just about everything.
Which brings me back to the EUPL. I really like the way it closes the ASP loophole without closing off everything else, as well. It does this with one word: "communicate." Rather than talking about distribution or delivery of software, the EUPL is triggered by "communication" of that software, defined in the following way:
Distribution and/or Communication: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, on-line or off-line, copies of the Work at the disposal of any other physical or legal person.Very clean. Very clear.
I also like the fact that the EUPL allows for attribution, which I think is important in the application/UI world (and much less so in the "headless" infrastructure world. It's related to droit morale, given that applications deal with the visual: the right of attribution and the right of integrity. If I make something that looks nice, and if you like it and extend it, I might want the downstream user to know that I contributed to your work. (Or I might not - perhaps I don't want you using my trademarks. But that's something the licensor can choose for herself, rather than having that right taken away by the GPL.)
You should check out the EUPL. It has its deficiencies, as all licenses do, but I appreciate the intent and the structure of the license. Please let me know what you think about it.
I've just found out the EUPL and I'm studying it. I think this license could really be a good means to create an european public software ecosystem and to allow public administrations to develop their own software in a collaborative way.
ReplyDelete