Request for approval: EUPL (European Union Public Licence)
bruce at perens.com
Mon Mar 17 01:06:10 UTC 2008
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> This point is not about the choice of law provision, but specifically
> the contact info issue. The specific examples are due to Russ
> Nelson's request.
> However, I think the contact info is an unreasonable requirement in
> the abstract. If it were necessary for some reason, I could think of
> other examples.
You mean #11? Obviously the name of the licensor is necessary for them
to assert their copyright, but you don't need to /compel /them to
provide it. The address? That does seem intrusive. The only reason I can
think of is to make it easier to serve process on the licensor of a
derivative work. Is it intended to help patent trolls? Read
for an example of what could happen.
What EU law requires the disclosure of that information? Can't the EU
just rely on that law rather than repeating it in the license?
More information about the License-review