Request for approval: EUPL (European Union Public Licence)
patrice-emmanuel.schmitz at be.unisys.com
Mon Mar 17 16:02:11 UTC 2008
It is a fact that OSI (which is a private organization based in
California) is often considered world-wide as the "moral authorithy"
which is in position to certify that a license is compliant with OSD.
You will find references to OSI in the general terms or recommendations
of many Free/Open Source software forges in Europe, and in some public
call for tenders when they request the delivery of OSS.
I hope that you will not add an 11th. "fordian" condition to OSD "Any
applicable law is acceptable for OSI approved licenses, provide it is
from California" :-)
More seriously, the text itself must be the main source of
clarification. The compliance with OSD is analysed in the legal analysis
that I communicated.
The circle of "EUPL writers" include some of the most experienced
lawyers in Europe, as Severine Dusollier, Till Jaeger and others (see
participants lists on http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=30133 .
From: Bruce Perens [mailto:bruce at perens.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:12 AM
To: John Cowan
Cc: License Review
Subject: Re: Request for approval: EUPL (European Union Public Licence)
John Cowan wrote:
> (The venue -- what court has jurisdiction -- isn't the issue here;
it's the law that that court is being asked to apply.
Sorry, I used the wrong word.
> Some courts won't apply the law specified in a choice-of-law clause,
in which case the clause is nugatory.)
And so a polysemy essentially always exists.
But I think you haven't shown that OSI is competent to evaluate any
license that specifies a law that it is not able to evaluate.
More information about the License-review