EUPL status

[Russ Nelson]

Right.  I'd REALLY like to take action on it in a few days while the
board is in Brussels (and you're invited to the meeting, Patrice-E.)
prior to attending FOSDEM over the weekend.

Please, everybody, give this a once-over.  It should be a VERY
significant license since it's an official government-approved license
AND it may be used in its native-language form, and yet litigated in
any of the languages you understand.  That feature is why it's taken
so long to be submitted and approved and modified.

We've seen this before, and ASKED them to make it look like this, so
if we don't approve it now, we'll look like poopy-heads (that's a
technical term).  (Note: if we DO come up with something that makes it
unapprovable, we won't approve it.  But we'll look like poopy-heads.)
-russ

Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel writes:
 > Hi Matthew & all,
 > 
 > The EUPL v.1.1 license was indeed approved by the European Commission on
 > 9 January 2009 and published on the EC official site
 > (http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/) and on www.osor.eu last week.
 > 
 > Originally, the text of the EUPL v.1.0 was submitted to OSI on 14 March
 > 2008
 >  
 > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:105:200803:kokiblmeljajbpncpb
 > nc 
 > 
 > Following this submission and 2 months discussion with OSI reviewers, a
 > revised "draft EUPL v.1.1" was submitted to OSI on 13 May 2008. This
 > draft was based on the discussion with OSI: 
 >  
 > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:206:200805:kokiblmeljajbpncpb
 > nc 
 > 
 > It received ticket #162 https://ideas.opensource.org/ticket/162
 > 
 > The text of the EUPL v.1.1 that was just approved corresponds to the
 > text of the draft that was re-submitted to OSI in May 2008. Therefore
 > (in my opinion) no new submission is needed.
 > 
 > The duration of this procedure is due to the necessary decision process
 > at the European Commission: after taking advice from experts and being
 > screened and approved by the Legal Service, the new version had to be
 > translated in 22 official linguistic versions and to be finally approved
 > by the College.   
 > 
 > Best,
 > Patrice-E. Schmitz 
 > OSOR.eu team
 >  
 > 
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Matthew Flaschen [mailto:matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu] 
 > Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 12:51 AM
 > To: License Review
 > Subject: Re: EUPL status
 > 
 > Martin Michlmayr wrote:
 > > * Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst at gmail.com> [2009-01-21 14:19]:
 > >> It may be my lack of Google-fu, but it is unclear to me what the
 > >> status of the EUPL in the approval process is, other than that it
 > >> has not been approved (yet). Can anyone enlighten me on this
 > >> subject?
 > > 
 > > According to OSOR, version 1.1 of the EUPL has just been approved by
 > > the European Commission.  So we just need someone to formally submit
 > > the license for review.
 > > 
 > > See
 > http://www.osor.eu/news/european-commission-approves-update-of-eu-public
 > -licence
 > 
 > EUPL 1.0 was submitted to OSI, then due to our feedback, a modified 1.1
 > was written and 1.0 was effectively withdrawn on May 13, 2008 concurrent
 > with the submission of EUPL 1.1
 > (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:206:200805:kokiblmeljajbpncp
 > bnc).
 > 
 > However, there wasn't much feedback and the licensing committee last
 > judged (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mmn:210), "The license
 > was re-submitted just yesterday; not enough time has passed to get
 > comments on the changes."
 > 
 > Matt Flaschen