I haven't had much luck with their "live" report though so I have a Cron job running every few minutes to regenerate it.
The reason it uses copyleft is to prevent people from taking my work and operating a competing SaaS with it; I don't think that's very "crazy" IMHO.
I could add a clause about it to make it unambiguous, perhaps, but it strikes me as rather redundant as it seems fairly clear to me, unless I missed something?
> Monetizing open source projects is incredibly difficult, and simply pasting a GPL or EUPL license text into the project doesn't make them easier to monetize
Sure, I don't disagree with that. But as mentioned non-copyleft includes the risk of a certain kind of abuse that I don't really want to take, either.
"You will not (and You will not allow any third party to) (i) copy, modify, adapt, translate or otherwise create derivative works of the Software"
As you typed, The interpretation of what is or is not a derivative work in this context is a subject that is legitimately complex. Its not tested, beyond the fact that the companies of 1/3 of the largest websites has had their lawyers green light to use software with such language in the license. So far the bet that a website does not constitute a derivative work of the analytic software it is using is holding.
I actually have a local branch that I made after you last comment to change the license of count.js to MIT, but then I thought about it some more and wasn't sure if that was the correct thing to do. My concern is that "EUPL with clarifications/exceptions" would be more complex than "just EUPL".
While "telling customers they're wrong" would not be good, changing stuff at a whim after singular complaint would not be best for the product, either.
Also, providing feedback by calling stuff "crazy" is probably not the best way to get people to listen ;-)
There is a growing trend in EU that giving over traffic data is not really acceptable (or legal) if they represent personal data. Here in Sweden there was a lot of embarrassing leaks where classified information got mishandled and government contracts with IBM broke the law as data left the country. Just a few months later a major medical scandal happened where audio recordings of patients slipped out and the medical confidentiality was broken. The cost is climbing high, and together with GDRP it is really pushing demands that data do not leave the border.
Naturally one can always spend the money to develop a custom system, but then we come back to the problem of competition and budget constrains. It is not easy to get such projects green lighted, especially if some engineer comes up and suggest that they can just use some free software and put that developer time on more important things.