EUPL Interoperability
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EUPL Interoperability Which FOSS components in EUPL solutions? By Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz t a time a growing number of code level with etc.) the covered code. European governments intend The Gnu GPLv2 is the most famous to encourage the distribution of example of these licences. A their software under the European Union Public Licence v1.1 (EUPL), it is useful to keep in mind the implications of this strategy and to develop e-Government solutions based on components licensed under compatible conditions. How is the EUPL interoperable with copyleft FOSS (free or open source) licences 1 and which Copyleft is perceived as a barrier for using component can you link or merge in a components as “software building blocks” solution distributed under the EUPL? (this is the case of software libraries), because developers may want to distribute the combined result under the The free licences categories licence of their choice. In most cases, simply using, aggregating or combining Historically, the licences for distributing various components will not generate free or open source software (FOSS) derivative works according to copyright where divided in two families: permissive law (and doing so is authorised by all and copyleft . To make short a long story, FOSS licences, even copyleft). However, the most permissive licences tolerate to there are risks that some integrations merge, combine or improve the covered (when code is modified, merged) are code and to re-distribute it under any derivative works. The uncertainty licence (including non-free or provides from the lack of specific case law “proprietary”). The BSD is the most in this field. famous example of permissive licence. At the contrary, the copyleft licences impose the use of the same licence as soon the distributed work includes (= is P-E Schmitz is lawyer and legal expert for www.osor.eu, the European Union derivative, is merged, modified at source collaborative open source observatory and software forge. This article presents 1 Except when quoting American texts or sources, the author personal opinions and does we use here the UK writing “Licence” and not the not commit the European Commission. American writing “License”. EUPL – Interoperability 1 Therefore a third category was recent licences are copyleft (including the promoted 2 and was presented as “Weak new Gnu GPLv3 introduced in June 2007, copyleft ” ( WC ). The Gnu LGPL is the best which is not compatible with the previous example of these copyleft licences, which GPLv2). This generate uncertainties for are aimed to be more interoperable with licensing large open source /free software others. The work that is assembled with solutions (i.e. in eGovernment) that are the covered building blocks (in fact a combined works based on the integration combined-derivative work) can be of multiple components. Some auditors distributed under any licence, but the said that one half of the projects they LGPL building blocks “taken alone” will audit suffer from some sort of licensing remain distributed as free software under compatibility issues, with about on fifth the LGPL, including their possible suffering from serious problems 4. improvements, if any. Therefore the challenge is not anymore avoiding or reducing licence proliferation (this is a definitive fact). It is to implement interoperability between strong copyleft licenses. The new “IC” category Around the year 2000, the pioneer FOSS When needing and creating a new licence licence Gnu GPLv2 was used in 85% of all having equal legal value in 22 languages, FOSS projects and it was considered as a terminology compliant with European “good for the community” to deal with legal environment, limitations of liability only one copyleft licence. This opinion or warranty valid in all Member States was motivated by the fact that strong and convenient jurisdiction - applicable copyleft licences are – by design – legally law provisions, the European Commission incompatible. A developer could of course decided to insert copyleft conditions in its technically combine pieces of code EUPL, while avoiding the incompatibility covered by incompatible licences, but the with the most used other copyleft distribution of the resulting derivative licences . work would be prohibited according to copyright law, because of the licence This makes the EUPL a representative of a conflict. fourth category of licence, that are “interoperable – copyleft ” (IC). It is Today, the phenomenon of licence therefore useful to define how this EUPL proliferation has made the situation a interoperability works, at a time where little bit more complex: the Open Source new government policies adopt the EUPL Initiative maintains a list of about 60 for distributing their software 5. The licences, but receives hundred some each years and up to 1.800 different models of 7,552,093 B2) the technology for controlling free software licences have been the use of open source licensing in a multi- 3 identified by experts . Many of these source development process. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/bla 2 By the Free software foundation, representing the ck-duck-software-awarded- most “purist” trend in the free software patent,1147065.shtml 4 philosophical movement http://oss-ipr-database.com/ 5 3 After counting 1,800 free software licences In Spain, the Royal decree 4/2010 used in hundreds of thousands of projects, the http://www.csae.mpr.es/csi/pg5e41_ingles.ht Black Duck company patented (Patent US ml ; EUPL – Interoperability 2 European Union Vice President Neelie resulting derivative solution “as a whole” Kroes, in charge of the digital agenda, under the compatible licence. refers to the EUPL for easy licensing under the EU legal framework 6. Procurement authorities, who are aware Please note that the primary licence of incompatibility risks, specify that applicable to the EUPL code “taken solutions delivered by their ICT providers alone”, or extracted from the combined “must be easily distributable by them – as solution when it is still possible 9 will not a whole – under the EUPL” 7. change, including the possible improvements done. Therefore, if some EUPL “downstream” compatibility contributor corrects a bug in a software licensed under the EUPL, localises it in First of all, the EUPL is a copyleft licence another language or create a new (just like the GPL): if you create source functionality by adding his or her own code and decide to distribute it under the written code, this contributor is not EUPL, this will stay “forever”. When a GPL authorised to switch to a compatible code cannot be distributed under the licence and to distribute the new EUPL, the EUPL code cannot be distributed under the GPL (or any other derivative work under the GPL (or under licence) for the same reason. the Eclipse, OSL, CeCILL). However, the EUPL has a “downstream” 8 compatibility list including five other Illustration : licences: the GNU GPLv.2, OSLv2.1, OSLv3, Eclipse v1.0 (plus the superseded CPLv1.0) and the CeCILLv2.0. This list makes the EUPL interoperable: what is allowed by interoperability is to produce a derivative work when combining code licensed under the EUPL with other code licensed under a compatible licence (GPLv2 in the example below) and to distribute the The permission to redistribute the combined work under the GPLv2 (as illustrated above) is resulting from EUPL In Malta, the 1st June 2010 policy compatibility clause (a section of article http://ictpolicies.gov.mt/docs/GMICT_P_0097 5), stating: _Open_Source_Software_v1.0.pdf ; In the Netherlands, the NOIV Licence wiki (in If the Licensee Distributes and/or Dutch); Communicates Derivative Works or copies In Estonia, the national interoperability thereof based upon both the Original Work framework and another work licensed under a http://www.riso.ee/en/pub/2009it/pdf/Yearb Compatible Licence , this Distribution and/or ook_ENG.pdf . Communication can be done under the terms of 6 Neelie Kroes speech on Youtube: this Compatible Licence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok100U4F o3Y&NR=1 For the sake of this clause, “Compatible 7 Provisions introduced by Member States ICT Licence” refers to the licences listed in the agencies in their ICT specifications (i.e. by the appendix attached to this Licence . Should the Red.es government ICT agency in Spain). Licensee’s obligations under the Compatible 8 “Downstream compatibility » refers to licences that may be used for derivative 9 It is possible when identified components works; “Upstream compatibility” refers to the are still “linked” in a derivative work. It may licences of covered components that could be not be possible when a derivative work really included in a work licensed under the EUPL. merges codes. EUPL – Interoperability 3 Licence conflict with his/her obligations under reason, the preliminary study done at the this Licence, the obligations of the Compatible time the EUPL was still a draft did not Licence shall prevail provide precise answers on this point 10 . In the EUPL, interoperability can be Let’s fix the scope: first, the question is summarized as follows: “licences are missing practical interest for covered interoperable when covered components components “taken alone” (there is no can be linked in a combined and reason why a EUPL licensor would change derivative work (a larger work), which can their primary FOSS licensing conditions). be distributed “as a whole” under one of The question is mostly interesting for new their licences.” Outside this scope, combined works that could be considered interoperability