Request for approval: EUPL (European Union Public Licence)

[Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel]

John Cowan scripsit:
> 
> > # 13 - paragraph 4
> >
> > " LINGUISTIC VERSIONS OF THIS LICENCE, APPROVED BY THE EUROPEAN
> > COMMISSION, HAVE IDENTICAL VALUE. PARTIES CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE
> > LINGUISTIC VERSION OF THEIR CHOICE."
> >
> > Rationale:         This new paragraph reflects the original
intention of
> > the European Commission when providing (currently) 22 linguistic
> > versions of the EUPL. However, this was not yet written in the EUPL.
It
> > addresses questions like: "If Licensees contract under the EUPL
based on
> > its English version, can a Licensor restrict their rights based, for
> > example, on the Hungarian version (in the case this one would be
more
> > restrictive)?"
> 
> This part disturbs me a little, since it seems to give Licensor and
> Licensee equal rights.  If Licensor brings an enforcement action
> based on the Hungarian version (which is more favorable to it) and
> Licensee defends on the basis of the English version (which is more
> favorable to it), what then?
> 
> I would break such ties in favor of Licensee, since the EUPL is a
> contract of adhesion (that is, the Licensor does not negotiate
> terms, but says "Take it or leave it") and therefore suggest
> the wording:
> 
> LICENSEES CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LINGUISTIC VERSION OF THEIR
CHOICE.
> 

[Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel reply:]
 
John,

This issue was considered seriously when writing. I understand the
priority that you give to the rights of the Licensee, however we
received other remarks to protect the rights of the Licensor, in
particular concerning the copyleft effect (what if a Licensee finds one
linguistic version where this right is weaker and tries to make the work
proprietary?). Therefore it seems more balanced to stay neutral with
"PARTIES", and let eventually a court decide what is reasonable if two
versions are in conflict.

On the other hand, do not forget that all linguistic version are
published together at: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl (currently v 1.0),
under permanent scrutiny of the community. The translation process was
done by the EC Legal Service (in charge of translating Community Law)
and revised by national experts (see Workshop
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7311 ). This (long) open process
provides some guarantee and has already produce results: a Czech member
reported one error in the Czech preamble and it was immediately
corrected.  

Patrice-Emmanuel