[License-review] ESA-PL Weak 2.3

[Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz]

Another question to Carsten Gerlach:

The “weak” ("reasonable" or "moderated" sounds better) copyleft ESA-PL_Weak
provides the right to (re-)distribute the Software and/or Modifications
under a compatible licence.
Annex A lists only two licences: the GNU GPL v2 and later and the CeCILL v2
or later.

Questions:
1. Why not the GNU/AGPL, knowing that the ESA-PL_Strong covers SaaS (point
3.4 which differs from tha ESA-PL_Weak)?
2. Why not the EUPL v1.2, which should be considered since ESA is "quasi" a
specific European Agency (even if some members differ), knowing that CeCILL
v2.1 is compatible with the EUPL (and the reciprocate)?
NB: in addition, the EUPL V1.2 authorises specific agreements concerning
applicable law and arbitration, where CeCILL refers to the French law only
and to the court of Paris

Kind regards,

P-E.






2018-03-03 1:18 GMT+01:00 Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>:

> 3.1 Copyleft Clause.
> All Distribution of the Software and/or Modifications, as Source Code or
> Object Code, must be, as a whole, either under (a) the terms of this
> License or the ESA-PL Strong Copyleft license *v2.2* or (b) any later
> version of these Licenses unless the Software is expressly Distributed only
> under a specific version of the License by a Contributor or (c) the terms
> of a compatible license as listed in Appendix A to this License. Any
> obligation in this License to Distribute under the terms of this License,
> in particular as set out in Sec. 3.2, shall be construed as referring to
> “this License or a compatible license”.
>
> Do you really mean v2.3 here?
>
> For* 3.2.1* and* 3.2.3*, I have the same criticisms as for the Strong
> version of the license.
>
> 3.2.4 *Combinations*. You may create a Modification (the “Combination”)
> by combining or linking the Software or Modifications thereof (the “Covered
> Code”) with additional code or software (the “External Code”) not governed
> by the terms of this License and Distribute the Combination
> - in Object Code form under any license terms, and/or
> - *in Source Code form the External Code’s Source Code* under any license
> terms
> and the Covered Code’s Source Code under this License,
>
> It would read better as "in Source Code form *with *the External Code’s
> Source Code under any license terms"
>
> For *7.1* and *7.2*, I have the same criticisms as for the Strong version
> of the license.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-
> review_lists.opensource.org
>
>


-- 
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
pe.schmitz at googlemail.com
tel. + 32 478 50 40 65
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180305/b52be27a/attachment.html>