EUPL-1.2 should be categorised as "FSF Free/Libre"

[P-E-SCHMITZ]

EUPL-1.1 is FSF Free/Libre.
Why not EUPL-1.2 ? EUPL-1.2 is compatible with all the GNU licenses ! Could you correct or escalate to FSF if appropriate ?

[kestewart]

We've asked FSF about this, and are waiting for their blessing. Its not explicitly listed on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html which is what we've used for guidance on marking so far.

[wking]

license-list-data is built by LicenseListPublisher which is getting FSF tags from the non-canonical fsf-api. So if the FSF wants the SPDX list to mark EUPL-1.2 as libre, they should update their list (and I'll update the fsf-api with an IDENTIFIER entry like this). They can also submit an update to fsf-api directly, or (and this would be my favorite choice ;) they can take fsf-api off my hands and provide a canonical API directly. But however this shakes out, I don't think this is a license-list-XML issue. Can we close this, and, if you like, open an fsf-api issue? Or is there a FSF issue tracker for license review requests?

[P-E-SCHMITZ]

Hello Kate, Thank you, Please continue to follow the case. The FSF list, that is used as a reference by many other sites, suffers from being outdated and was not modified for years. This looks problematic and unreliable. I just contact Eben Moglen at softwarefreedom.org, hoping that he could provide some support. Kind regards, Patrice

2018-04-18 11:44 GMT+02:00 Kate Stewart notifications@github.com:

We've asked FSF about this, and are waiting for their blessing. Its not explicitly listed on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/ license-list.en.html which is what we've used for guidance on marking so far.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/638#issuecomment-382329502, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AktWmGG1_SHiRvaxJzdqYbttG1Bf6fhXks5tpwsTgaJpZM4TZrRD .

-- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schmitz@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65

[zvr]

The FSF list is regularly being updated; the last modification was on February this year. The correct way to ask about updates for this is emailing licensing@fsf.org

[P-E-SCHMITZ]

This is astonishing. In fact I contacted the person who is - as far as I know - in charge. On 28 August 2017, donald@fsf.org wrote:

"Thank you for putting this information together. ...We'll put it on the docket for review, so we'll hopefully update our license list in the near future."

Then I suggested the needed improvements and on 24 October 2017 Donald answered:

" Thank you for this. We're a bit swamped at the moment so this is very helpful."

Do you think that the request should be sent again to licensing@fsf.org ? Will do it anyway if it may help...

2018-04-19 12:56 GMT+02:00 Alexios Zavras (zvr) notifications@github.com:

The FSF list is regularly being updated; the last modification was on February this year. The correct way to ask about updates for this is emailing licensing@fsf.org

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/638#issuecomment-382693819, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AktWmGbuqM0bv0aSQKe1kSZMgjqRe_Wsks5tqG14gaJpZM4TZrRD .

-- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schmitz@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65

[zvr]

Sure, a gentle reminder can not hurt -- and it's the only way to get updated information to the page and therefore in the SPDX list.

[kestewart]

Lets leave this open so we can track it to resolution.

[P-E-SCHMITZ]

Agreed. A reminder has sent sent to licensing@fsf.org. It is now their ticket gnu.org #1289289 If and when they will react, I will keep you in the loop! Greetings,

2018-04-20 11:17 GMT+02:00 Kate Stewart notifications@github.com:

Reopened #638 https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/638.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/638#event-1585726356, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AktWmJzUCWzoMpoIT5zXfNdxFbtwGP5Fks5tqae0gaJpZM4TZrRD .

-- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schmitz@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65

[wking]

It is now their ticket gnu.org #1289289

Is there a public URL for that?

I still think it would be better to track this issue somewhere actionable, so either the FSF issue tracker (which may not be public) or an fsf-api issue.

[P-E-SCHMITZ]

I have nothing against the discussion being public, but as far as I know it is not depending on me (?) The EUPL-1.1 is already considered by FSF as a free software licence. Hovever, it was categorised as GPL incompatible because the GPLv2 only was expressly compatible, and the GPLv3 was compatible indirectly. It is clear that the EUPL-1.2 is as free/libre as the EUPL-1.1 (because the content is the same) and that it is now compatible with all the GNU licenses, because the license list published in the official journal of the European Union (EUPL annex) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2017.128.01.0059.01. ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2017%3A128%3ATOC includes all these licences: GPLv2, GPLv3, AGPL and LGPL. So, I assume that discussion should not take long time, hopefully. Greetings,

2018-04-20 16:32 GMT+02:00 W. Trevor King notifications@github.com:

It is now their ticket gnu.org #1289289

Is there a public URL for that?

I still https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/638#issuecomment-382476761 think it would be better to track this issue somewhere actionable, so either the FSF issue tracker (which may not be public) or an fsf-api issue https://github.com/wking/fsf-api/issues.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/638#issuecomment-383115217, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AktWmGrE7u5byMTY85bOTf347nRI6xQ3ks5tqfFggaJpZM4TZrRD .

-- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schmitz@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65

[wking]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 06:56:30PM +0000, P-E-SCHMITZ wrote:

I have nothing against the discussion being public, but as far as I know it is not depending on me (?)

Right, that's up to the FSF. And I have no problem if they want their discussion to be private, but it would be nice, and seems non-controversial, if they had a public list somewhere of licenses in their review queue. I don't think this repository is the obvious location for other folks looking to see whether a given license is in the FSF review queue ;). In the absence of a public FSF queue, I think fsf-api issues 1 would be a reasonable place for this sort of thing, and that is up to you (because anyone with a GitHub account can file public fsf-api issues).

The EUPL-1.1 is already considered by FSF as a free software licence. Hovever, it was categorised as GPL incompatible because the GPLv2 only was expressly compatible, and the GPLv3 was compatible indirectly.

fsf-api currently attempts to distinguish between gpl-2-compatible and gpl-3-compatible 2, although that's a bit of a judgement call on my part based on the FSF's human-readable text 3. Do you consider the FSF's current wording 4 sufficiently clear for a tag-override marking the EUPL-1.1 as gpl-2-compatible? Their steps to relicense as GPLv3 via CeCILLv2 require additional code, so I don't think we want the gpl-3-compatible tag.

[P-E-SCHMITZ]

Hi Trevor, It appears to me that the FSF scenario to "relicense" via CeCILL was just tricky. This was indeed possible with EUPL-1.1 (in pure theory, because I do not know any example) but it is simply not necessary anymore with EUPL-1.2 To be clear, I reproduce below the content of the mail sent to FSF, including comments on the current statement and suggestions for a new statement, much shorter and clear hopefully.

THIS IS THE CURRENT TEXT, PUBLISHED UNDER THE “GPL-INCOMPATIBLE FREE SOFTWARE LICENSES”:

European Union Public License (EUPL) version 1.1 (#EUPL)

This is a free software license. By itself, it has a copyleft comparable to the GPL's, and incompatible with it. However, it gives recipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selected licenses, and some of those—the Eclipse Public License and the Common Public License in particular—only provide a weaker copyleft. Thus, developers can't rely on this license to provide a strong copyleft.

The EUPL allows relicensing to GPLv2, because that is listed as one of the alternative licenses that users may convert to. It also, indirectly, allows relicensing to GPL version 3, because there is a way to relicense to the CeCILL v2, and the CeCILL v2 gives a way to relicense to any version of the GNU GPL.

To do this two-step relicensing, you need to first write a piece of code which you can license under the CeCILL v2, or find a suitable module already available that way, and add it to the program. Adding that code to the EUPL-covered program provides grounds to relicense it to the CeCILL v2. Then you need to write a piece of code which you can license under the GPLv3+, or find a suitable module already available that way, and add it to the program. Adding that code to the CeCILL-covered program provides grounds to relicense it to GPLv3+.

COMMENTS:

1) “it gives recipients ways to relicense the work…”

The terms “relicense” or “relicensing” are really at risk because stating so, the FSF could be responsible to lead the recipient committing copyright infringement! Indeed, if you receive program AAA under EUPL, you cannot relicense AAA under the GPL. But if you have another work BBB distributed under the GPL, you can “extend” it with all or part of the code received under the EUPL and continue to distribute BBB under the GPL. You may also create a brand new project CCC merging the two codes (from AAA and BBB) and distribute it under the GPL’s (v2, v3 or AGPL). For this reasons, the term “relicense” is dangerous and misleading. It is better to say “merge” or “reuse”.

2) “some of (the compatible licences) —the Eclipse Public License and the Common Public License in particular—only provide a weaker copyleft. Thus, developers can't rely on this license to provide a strong copyleft.”

The EUPL v1.2 list of compatible licenses is even more extended: to the LGPL and to the MPL! However the whole distinction between strong and weak copyleft licenses is seriously questioned by the European law, at least in case of linking. Therefore, in so far it is not useful to reanimate the raging linking debate, it looks better to avoid such comment.

3) “It also, indirectly, allows relicensing to GPL version 3…”

In addition to the above considerations about the misleading use of the term “relicensing”, the GPL version 3 and the AGPL are now both added expressly to the EUPL compatible licenses list (that included previously only the GPL version 2, because it was written prior to the publication of the GPL version 3). Therefore the whole section can be removed.

SUGGESTION: REMOVE STATEMENTS ON EUPL V1.1 AND INSERT THE FOLLOWING IN THE LIST OF GPL-COMPATIBLE FREE SOFTWARE LICENSES:

European Union Public License (EUPL) version 1.2 (#EUPL-1.2)

This is a free software license. By itself, it has a copyleft comparable to the GPL's. However, it gives recipients ways to merge or reuse all or part of the covered code in another work covered by a compatible license and to distribute the obtained combined derivative work under the terms of this compatible license. The EUPL-1.2 list of compatible licenses includes the GPL’s (v2 and v3), the GNU AGPL and the GNU LGPL.

2018-04-20 21:31 GMT+02:00 W. Trevor King notifications@github.com:

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 06:56:30PM +0000, P-E-SCHMITZ wrote:

I have nothing against the discussion being public, but as far as I know it is not depending on me (?)

Right, that's up to the FSF. And I have no problem if they want their discussion to be private, but it would be nice, and seems non-controversial, if they had a public list somewhere of licenses in their review queue. I don't think this repository is the obvious location for other folks looking to see whether a given license is in the FSF review queue ;). In the absence of a public FSF queue, I think fsf-api issues 1 would be a reasonable place for this sort of thing.

The EUPL-1.1 is already considered by FSF as a free software licence. Hovever, it was categorised as GPL incompatible because the GPLv2 only was expressly compatible, and the GPLv3 was compatible indirectly.

fsf-api currnently attempts to distinguish between gpl-2-compatible and gpl-3-compatible 2, although that's a bit of a judgement call on my part based on the FSF's human-readable text 3. Do you consider the FSF's current wording 4 sufficiently clear for a tag-override marking the EUPL-1.1 as gpl-2-compatible? Their steps to relicense as GPLv3 via CeCILLv2 require additional code, so I don't think we want the gpl-3-compatible tag.

d4db204709#license-properties

d4db204709#caveats

d4db204709/pull.py#L85-L92

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/638#issuecomment-383198708, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AktWmLlESyoYovmL0ubQYfbLLnOIoTA2ks5tqjd_gaJpZM4TZrRD .

-- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schmitz@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65

[wking]

SUGGESTION: REMOVE STATEMENTS ON EUPL V1.1...

You think the FSF should remove their EUPL-1.1 opinion? That would remove it's current libre tag from fsf-api and the rendered SPDX License List. Wouldn't it be better for the FSF to add an EUPL-1.2 opinion while keeping (possibly with simplifications) their EUPL-1.1 opinion?

[P-E-SCHMITZ]

You are right, they should maintain the EUPL-1.1 statement, as the license is still used. At least the statement that it is a free software license...

2018-04-21 15:33 GMT+02:00 W. Trevor King notifications@github.com:

SUGGESTION: REMOVE STATEMENTS ON EUPL V1.1...

You think the FSF should remove their EUPL-1.1 opinion? That would remove it's current libre tag from fsf-api and the rendered SPDX License List. Wouldn't it be better for the FSF to add an EUPL-1.2 opinion while keeping (possibly with simplifications) their EUPL-1.1 opinion?

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/638#issuecomment-383295947, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AktWmIJeEj9k7M0YNvNmf9PZiGdZXWxVks5tqzUugaJpZM4TZrRD .

-- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schmitz@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65

[jlovejoy]

adding the "FSF Free/Libre?" was a request from the FSF and the intent was to identify licenses that the FSF considers Free/libre. - ie, the licenses with green, purple, or dashed orange on their page https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

It was not meant to identify compatibility with GPL - that is a different issue and not one we want to delve into.

[P-E-SCHMITZ]

Would it be possible for you to ask the FSF if they consider the EUPL v1.2 as "FSF Free/Libre"?

2018-06-14 21:08 GMT+02:00 Jilayne Lovejoy notifications@github.com:

adding the "FSF Free/Libre?" was a request from the FSF and the intent was to identify licenses that the FSF considers Free/libre. - ie, the licenses with green, purple, or dashed orange on their page https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

It was not meant to identify compatibility with GPL - that is a different issue and not one we want to delve into.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/638#issuecomment-397405985, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AktWmN027quoujK8wF9sZMdlBxeImQ5Gks5t8rTIgaJpZM4TZrRD .

-- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schmitz@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65

[wking]

Would it be possible for you to ask the FSF if they consider the EUPL v1.2 as "FSF Free/Libre"?

Don't you already have an open ticket with them for that?

[P-E-SCHMITZ]

Several request were sent to FSF asking them to update their statements regarding the EUPL It is now their ticket gnu.org #1289289. In April and May there were also some mail exchanges with rms who received the license text and response to a specific question, but without any visible move so far.

2018-06-16 18:51 GMT+02:00 W. Trevor King notifications@github.com:

Would it be possible for you to ask the FSF if they consider the EUPL v1.2 as "FSF Free/Libre"?

Don't you already have an open ticket https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/638#issuecomment-383054497 with them for that?

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/638#issuecomment-397825066, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AktWmLCMyLMmjE2NIlok-G7fkMn6Wroeks5t9TemgaJpZM4TZrRD .

-- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schmitz@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65

[ghost]

I think they have the EUPL-1.2 on their list already? https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2

[P-E-SCHMITZ]

Yes, this is done now. Richard M Stallman wrote on June 29: I'm sorry it took so long, but we've recorded that the EUPL 1.2 is a free license." Of course, and astonishingly, it is still listed as "incompatible", while all existing GNU licenses are listed as compatible, but this is another story... Best, P-E

2018-07-03 12:08 GMT+02:00 Dennis Schridde notifications@github.com:

I think they have the EUPL-1.2 on their list already? https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/638#issuecomment-402090829, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AktWmGMedFx44pEoO5YonxWtwo-cZ_mJks5uC0KsgaJpZM4TZrRD .

-- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schmitz@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65

[wking]

I've filed wking/fsf-api#21 mapping their new identifier. I'll give it a few days to cook and then merge and rebuild the gh-pages branch. After that, new builds of the SPDX license list data will mark the EUPL-1.2 as FSF Free/Libre. Is there anything left to do here? I was in favor of closing this in favor of an fsf-api issue before. I still think this issue can be closed whenever, as it's not actionable in this repository. But if maintainers and/or @P-E-SCHMITZ want to leave it open until we push a new release to license-list-data or whatever, that would work too.

[jlovejoy]

closing, as information has been updated and will be reflected in 3.3 release