

And next question: Isn’t that what the AGPL does but the specific variant of the EUPL they picked for their reticulum project doesn’t even do?
Edit: And furthermore, it’s no even as strict as the GPL because everyone is allowed to redistribute it under the terms of the LGPL?




Isn’t both exactly the other way round?
The license (EUPL-1.2) specifically talks about redistributing either the source, or executable files. (see definition of original work, also distribution.) Nowhere do they mention a service running the work comes with any kinds of obligations? I just can’t find any single sentence in the license text covering SaaS…
Both “Copyleft clause” and “Provision of source code” are pretty clear as well. It’s only about distributing copies of the work. Not running it and providing it as a service.
And regarding the compatible licenses, they say the other one wins. At least regarding the “obligations”. However that’s defined and whether it’s the licensor’s or licensee’s obligations: