Hello. Argh. I've written too much again, i'll try to underline some sections with "!>" so you can skip the rest:
!>I've read that a software license has been published by the EU !>to cover software made by or for public administration that is !>freed by EU governments. !> !>It's at: !>http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6523 !> !>I haven't found it at !>http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html !> !>An I've read the license, the preamble and the explanation on !>the compatibility clause (without reading the reports it cites). !> !>The license is all right with me, until I get to an strange !>twist: !> !> The European Commission may put into force translations and/or binding new !> versions of this Licence, so far this is required and reasonable. New versions of the !> Licence will be published with a unique version number. The new version of the !> Licence becomes binding for You as soon as You become aware of its publication. !>
I've seen similar clauses in some propietary licenses (for demos or betas at least). I'm not an expert on software copyright or licenses, but I've never seen a free software license that can expire, and as I see it, this clause means that the moment that the European Commission changes its mind, I can lose my right to use , modify or redistribute the software. I think the CEC has several means to make sure that I (or anyone) is made aware of the change of license (for instace with a certified letter, a visit by some officer, or simply widespread propaganda, but in any case easily done previous to a lawsuit).
!> That wouldn't be free software
I certainly have no trust in any license than can be so easily revoked (and I suspect it wouldn't be DFSG either, but I haven't checked and I have bad memory). Any investment in work or learning with software that I don't know if it will be free tomorrow is nearly wasted. I'm not sure it would be even legal to take away the granted rights, but I've seen it in other licenses, so it might well be.
I'm relieved to find that confirmed in the free software definition at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html :
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.
I could understand people who publish their software under GPL version X only and those who trust FSF enough to publish under GPL version X or later. But it's always version X or later as the user chooses, not as the publisher or FSF chooses at a later moment in time, just by making people aware of the change.
I also don't know whether this clause was already in EUPL v 0.2 or is new. I hadn't checked v 0.2. Today's news just happen to reach me in a moment I could spare some minutes to read the license.
I hope I'm missing something here and... well I don't know, maybe there's some binding compromise somewhere that the EU cannot change the EUPL to grant less than some minimum freedoms, come what may, or so, but I don't see it. I know governments can change law and therefore can take away freedoms even without changing the licenses in their software, but well, that would at least require some legislative maneuvring and some votes somewhere (just don't get me started on democracy and the EU).
Of course the same concern I have may be shared by any public administration that the EUPL aims to serve. Will my local council use software by a neighbour local council if the permission to use it may be revoked at any time by the European Comission ? Will any business help my local council adapt software under EUPL if their legal ability to conclude the project is dependent on a change of political tides in Brussels ? Is that sound policy ?
Just thought I'd ask in case someone here is aware and can clarify my confusion.
On 13-Feb-2007, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
Hello. Argh. I've written too much again, i'll try to underline some sections with "!>" so you can skip the rest:
Unfortunately this makes it look like you're including text from a different message (i.e. quoting another message), and is more confusing. Perhaps judicious use of blank lines would better offset the sections of your message.
!>The license is all right with me, until I get to an strange !>twist: !> !> The European Commission may put into force translations and/or binding new !> versions of this Licence, so far this is required and reasonable. New versions of the !> Licence will be published with a unique version number. The new version of the !> Licence becomes binding for You as soon as You become aware of its publication.
I've seen similar clauses in some propietary licenses (for demos or betas at least).
The drafter of the copyright license has a strong motive to increase the control held by the copyright holder, at the expense of the recipient of the work. This is just one expression of that.
Proprietary licenses claim a great range of things for the copyright holder, and in many cases these are overreaching and of dubious legality.
On the other hand, a change in the law is all it takes to make these overreaching clauses binding, at least to the extent that they would be very expensive to defend against.
!> That wouldn't be free software
You're right, for the reason you state below.
I'm relieved to find that confirmed in the free software definition at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html :
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.
"You can have these freedoms until I decide otherwise for my own reasons" is not a grant of free license. We should only accept freedoms that are granted in the presumption of good faith; i.e. that if we give no cause to have the freedoms restricted, they will not be restricted.