Personally, I also think that much of the hate which one would find e.g. on reddit or the orange site against copyleft licenses in general, and the GPL specifically was probably astroturfing from corporations for which it was just an obstacle to appropiate more unpaid volunteer work for the commons for free.
For the Linux kernel - and for GNU/Linux as an OS - the GPL was never a problem. On the contrary: Without it, the kernel would not be what it is (the historic Torvalds - Tanenbaum debate shows the reasons quite clearly).
The same is true, by the way for the GNU Guix project: Very few arguments against it are logical or really hold water. It is, for example, perfectly possile to publish a Guix channel for a commercial game or proprietary software on ones own web site - just as you can do with a docker image. And the way Guix takes care of dependencies and updates makes it probably the easiest way to do such. Because you can use Guix as a package manager on most distros - I use it both on Debian and Arch - I find it more reasonable than using snaps, docker, or flatpaks.
The reason for the hate is likely something else: That you can’t commercialise and embrace the whole, source-based ecosystem. And also, in a primarily source-based system, you have less control over other peoples computers: You can still offer binary packages similar to Ubuntu ppas, but you will need to explain to people why you want them to install binary stuff from you, which can take control of their computer. Do you have any experience with a relationship where one side wanted complete control and it turned out good for you?
For example, you also can’t use the Guix infrastructure (e.g. their mailing list or download server) to promote or advertise commercial, non-free stuff.
But expecting or demanding to be able to do that is just ridiculous: Nobody expects from Microsoft or Apple that they feel obliged to promote or market Adobe or Oracle products. Alone the idea that companies could demand that shows how entitled the corporations behave in respect to free software.
EUPL is a strong copyleft license that closes the “SaaS loophole” by requiring reciprocal licensing regardless of how the software is distributed.
Isn’t that what AGPL does?
And next question: Isn’t that what the AGPL does but the specific variant of the EUPL they picked for their reticulum project doesn’t even do?
Edit: And furthermore, it’s no even as strict as the GPL because everyone is allowed to redistribute it under the terms of the LGPL?
Reticulum seems to be licensed EUPL 1.2, which includes the SaaS provision.
everyone is allowed to redistribute it under the terms of the LGPL
I think maybe you misunderstand how cross-licensing works under EUPL. When you cross-license into a weaker copyleft like the LGPL, the stronger provisions in the EUPL still apply and prevail.
Isn’t both exactly the other way round?
The license (EUPL-1.2) specifically talks about redistributing either the source, or executable files. (see definition of original work, also distribution.) Nowhere do they mention a service running the work comes with any kinds of obligations? I just can’t find any single sentence in the license text covering SaaS…
Both “Copyleft clause” and “Provision of source code” are pretty clear as well. It’s only about distributing copies of the work. Not running it and providing it as a service.
And regarding the compatible licenses, they say the other one wins. At least regarding the “obligations”. However that’s defined and whether it’s the licensor’s or licensee’s obligations:
Should the Licensee’s obligations under the Compatible Licence conflict with
his/her obligations under this Licence, the obligations of the Compatible
Licence shall prevail.I just can’t find any single sentence in the license text covering SaaS.
SaaS is covered by the following fragment (emphasized by me below) which was added since version 1.1 to the last paragraph of Article 1:
- ‘Distribution’ or ‘Communication’: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, online or offline, copies of the Work
or providing access to its essential functionalitiesat the disposal of any other natural or legal person.
regarding the compatible licenses, they say the other one wins.
If you combine the original work (licensed EUPL) with another work (licensed under weaker terms, but only applicable to one of the explicitly listed licenses), and there’s a conflict of obligations for the combined result, the terms of the lesser license prevail.
If there’s no conflict or the other license is silent, the stronger terms prevail (EUPL).
The original work always remains under the stronger terms (EUPL).
Hope this clears it up.
PS: I think maybe I understand the confusion. In the earlier comment I was talking about cross-licensing. That means making the software available under two licenses. That’s something that can only be done by the copyright holder.
What you’re describing is not cross-licensing. If someone takes EUPL software and combines it with code under one of the other listed licenses, the distribution alone of the mixed result can be done under the terms of the other license (if the obligations conflict etc. etc.)
Hmmh. Sure, cross-licensing is an entirely different topic. That’s not really what we’re afraid of when for example Amazon takes some Free Software and provides it as a service.
But I must say, I’m still confused. What’s an “essential functionality” now? Is that supposed to be a legal term? And where are the blurry lines with that? What’s if I offer a hosting service that heavily relies on database operations, but it’s slightly abstracted away from the customer? It’s internally 85% made up of some other person’s work, but it builds upon that Free Software and doesn’t straight provide access to it’s functionalities, but an abstraction layer?
- ‘Distribution’ or ‘Communication’: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, online or offline, copies of the Work
