According to the compatibility matrix (https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/matrix-eupl-compatible-open…), the GNU GPL (both v2 and v3) should be compatible with the EUPLv1.2 as described by the FSF (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean), as I would say this "downstream compatibility" as described by the EUPL Compatibility Matrix. However, the FSF still sees the EUPL v1.2 as a free software licence that is incompatible with the GPL.
Has anyone an idea why that is the case?
Login or create an account to comment.
Comments
This is indeed a surprising opinion from the FSF...
The true fact is that the EUPL-1.2 is expressly compatible with the GPL-2 and GPL-3 that are both listed in the EUPL Appendix, as it is published in the EU Official journal of 19 May 2017.
The true story is that Mr. Stallman would have liked to see "written" that the EUPL is compatible with the GPL-3-OR-LATER, meaning i.e. a GPL-4 that does not exist. But the European Commission is not used to signing a blank check, and so RMS and FSF sulk, knowing they have been quite skeptical or hostile to the EUPL initiative from the start, when it was initiated by Karel De Vriendt who was the innovative and dynamic Head of Unit at IDA/DG Digit in 2005, and who met RMS before opting for creating the EUPL, rather than using the GPL.
This is REALLY the "EGO-based" reason why the FSF still considers the EUPL as incompatible with the GPL on their website. Sorry about that, because this is not reasonable at all and mislead readers, even educated as you are...
We sincerely hope that a new (or current) generation of FSF stakeholders will - some day - conclude for a more cooperative and interoperable attitude, but...
"You can lead a horse (or a gnu) to water but you can’t make him drink!"
In order to understand a little bit more the current debate around the FSF, see in "Hacker News" the recent 11 April 2023 blog from Drew DeVault under the title " The Free Software Fundation is dying".
As in many public discussions, opinions are often divided, although generally of good quality and reflecting community concerns.