Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I can't say that I agree with that rationale. One of his major requirements is:

> Have a “strong” copyleft, including the so-called “network protection”, which mandates that people submit changes even if they operate the code as a service (rather than sending people binaries).

However the EUPL allows you redistribute under other "compatible" licenses[1] most of which don't provide that "network protection". Effectively, the EUPL is only as strong as the weakest "compatible" license listed in the appendix.

[1] These "compatible" licenses wouldn't otherwise be compatible, except that the EUPL explicitly allows re-licensing to them instead.

The EUPL only allows relicensing if the covered work is part of a larger work, so you can't simply take EUPL code and distribute it as LGPL just like that. It has to be some part of a larger work.

Could one then extract the originally-EUPL subset under the new license and go from there though?

No, the subset is still EUPL licensed, the larger work sublicenses it under a different license.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact