@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
The EUPL covers SaaS (Software as a Service): if an internet service provider modifies the licensed software to distribute online services (as Google does), this is “software distribution”.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
The EUPL covers SaaS (Software as a Service): if an internet service provider modifies the licensed software to distribute online services (as Google does), this is “software distribution”.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] i'm not a lawyer i'm just skimming through it and also reading this: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/news/eupl-or-gplv3-comparison-t
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] the applicable law is eu centric ("eu country of business or Belgium") rather than undefined (which has and will be abused) along with more defined liability clauses ("no liability" has been proven to not be real), built in linking exception for source disclosure (so it's essentially LGPL) and the legal resolutions take place where the licensor resides rather than undefined. (not a lawyer)
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] seems 1.2 is GPL 3 compatible
@[email protected] i use MPL now, so same i guess. I used to be 0BSD/MIT/ISC but then my reverse engineering work got packaged into a paid app and claimed they wrote it :blobbee_shrug:
@[email protected] put it on floppies or CD-Rs and you might genuinely have people wanting to buy it
especially if you print some fancy 90s/2000s shovelware label on it