Request for approval: EUPL (European Union Public Licence)

[Ian Vernon]

Flaschen, Matthew wrote:

>>In my opinion, it would be unwise of the OSI to approve the non-English 
>>language versions at this time.  This is because translation errors can 
>>affect the meaning, the majority of the OSI board is only fluent in 
>>English (as far as I know), and hiring independent translators familiar 
>>with legal terms would be cost-prohibitive.

I wonder if there is a need for OSI to approve any version of the license
since it already came into law in 2007 and considering what is intended for:

"The attached "European Union Public Licence" ("EUPL") has been elaborated
in the framework of IDABC, a European Community programme, with the aim to
promote Interoperable Delivery of European eGovernment Services to public
Administrations, Business and Citizens. IDABC continues and deepens the
previous IDA ("Interchange of data between Administrations") programme."

"The utility of this Licence is to reinforce legal interoperability by
adopting a common framework for pooling public sector software"

http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=30149 (English version of the
preamble)



>>You may want to seriously consider adding GPLv3.

There might nor be a need for GPLv3 considering  the intention of the
license is to validate who owns the intellectual property:

"The European Community, on the basis of the contracts that permitted the
development of such software, is owner of all Intellectual Property Rights
and consequently of the source code and executables."

"Such IDA or IDABC developed tools are used by public administrations
outside the European Institutions, under a licence delivered by the European
Commission, which is the Institution acting on behalf of the European
Community since the copyright for those tools belongs to the European
Community."


The approved version (1.0) of the license can be found at 
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=29921 

The license was cleverly written in simple legal language minimising
translation errors from the three main European languages (German, French,
English) to all the other European languages (there are 22 official
versions)


>>First, I think that law is itself fairly draconian, and would have a
chilling effect if >>enforced.  See for instance the unofficial Debian
Dissident Test >> >> >> >> >>
>>(http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), which says, "Consider a
dissident in >>a totalitarian state who wishes to share a modified bit of
software with fellow >>dissidents, but does not wish to reveal the identity
of the modifier..."


The approved official version states:

"11. Information to the public
In case of any Distribution and/or Communication of the Work by means
of electronic communication by You (for example, by offering to download
the Work from a remote location) the distribution channel or media (for
example, a website) must at least provide to the public the information
requested by the applicable law regarding the identification and address
of the Licensor, the Licence and the way it may be accessible, concluded,
stored and reproduced by the Licensee."


Of which complies with the EU regulations on public safety. The main point
to consider here is EU's policy on public safety, please be aware that each
member country have their own policy on public safety.



>>It seems to me that, "This Licence shall be governed by the law of the
European >>Union country where the Licensor resides or has his registered
office ... This licence >>shall be governed by the Belgian law if the
Licensor, other than the European >>Commission, has no residence or
registered office inside a European Union country."

The approved official version states that when the EC is the licensor any
litigation or arbitration shall take place where the licensor resides or
conducts primary business:

"14. Jurisdiction
Any litigation resulting from the interpretation of this License, arising
between the European Commission, as a Licensor, and any Licensee, will
be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities, as laid down in article 238 of the Treaty establishing the
European Community.
Any litigation arising between Parties, other than the European
Commission, and resulting from the interpretation of this License, will be
subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent court where the
Licensor resides or conducts its primary business."


>>does indeed always impose European law (even when neither party resides in
the >>EU), which is not reasonable.

The license was intended for use in the EU public sector (government ad
non-profit) thus making EU law the default law of choice:

"15. Applicable Law
This Licence shall be governed by the law of the European Union country
where the Licensor resides or has his registered office.
This licence shall be governed by the Belgian law if:
- a litigation arises between the European Commission, as a
Licensor, and any Licensee;
- the Licensor, other than the European Commission, has no
residence or registered office inside a European Union country."



Ian Vernon