Perhaps someone else can clarify this, but I've been cautious about using this license instead of AGPLv3, because even though it includes this clause to close the SaaS loophole:
‘Distribution’ or ‘Communication’: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, online or offline, copies of the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities at the disposal of any other natural or legal person.
It still allows someone to relicense your work under GPL-2.0-only and GPL-3.0-only (amongst others):
‘Compatible Licences’ according to Article 5 EUPL are:
— GNU General Public License (GPL) v. 2, v. 3
Both these licenses have no such clause. Does this not make the attempt to close the SaaS loophole void?
edit: some words from the FSF
it gives recipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selected licenses, and some of those—the Eclipse Public License in particular—only provide a weaker copyleft. Thus, developers can't rely on this license to provide a strong copyleft.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2To me, this seems very poorly thought out. I see no reason to use this license over AGPL (or even GPL).
edit: some words from the FSF
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EUPL-1.2To me, this seems very poorly thought out. I see no reason to use this license over AGPL (or even GPL).