Request for approval: EUPL (European Union Public Licence)

[Bruce Perens]

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.
OK.
> 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 
http://ipgeek.blogspot.com/2006/09/sisvels-brings-patent-wild-west-into.html
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?

    Thanks

    Bruce