Talk:European Union Public Licence

message: Article claims the Commission can terminate licenses. Having read the text, I don't see how that's even vaguely supportable, and it's not cited, so I'm taking that claim out.
83.67.74.208 20:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

message: Isn't the ASP loophole closed by the EUPL as mentioned here [] ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yezu (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASP ???? =

message: I took out a bunch of stuff that seemed like discussion stuff, and reworded a lot to make it more concise and encyclopedic. Overall, though, this article has a lot of good information and gave me a good first impression of the EUPL (which I hadn't heard of before today). My edits are here: []
Now the article just needs some citations for specific facts (sorry I didn't get to that...) and I think it's good to go. (Oh, and just because I said I tried to make it more encyclopedic doesn't mean I think my version is definitive... keep hacking away at it, this is Wikipedia!) Cherry Cotton 05:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My revision 

message: I'm wondering if the link to "the EUPL revokable?" should be taken out as misleading. The concern voiced in that link is real because the English formulation "The new version of the Licence becomes binding for You as soon as You become aware of its publication." is unfortunate as it suggests that new versions of the license replace old ones. However, if you read the German or French versions (which are equally official!  This is unlike the GPL where only the English text governs) it is clear that the intention is "The new version of the Licence becomes applicable to You as soon as You become aware of its publication." Keeping in mind that a licence is a means to convey rights you otherwise don't have, this is IMHO clear in its meaning that "You may exercise the rights given to You under the new version as soon as You take notice of it."
Any other interpretation would be nonsensical since the EUPL explicitly permits relicensing under the GPL v2, so you could always escape any new restrictions via this path.
Furthermore the "as soon as You become aware of its publication." is a very clear hint to the proper reading of this paragraph as conveying new rights rather than new restrictions. It would be silly to condition new restrictions on someone becoming aware of them, because you would end up with a group of people not bound by the new restrictions by virtue of ignorance. The standard way to establish new restrictions in the proprietary world is to make them effective from the date of being published, regardless of whether licensees become aware of the new terms or not. That this is not being done here is a clear indication that it's not what's intended. Finally, you need to consider the source. This is not a company license. It's intended for licensing taxpayer funded government projects. Commercial exploitation by the EU would not even be legal, so it's silly to expect trickery here.
194.113.40.219 (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  EUPL revokable? 

message: Hi!
Just wanted to add the link to the info-box which kinda worked, but it only shows a reference-mark instead of the url like it does at [GPL], eventhough I copied the code from there. If someone could fix that it would be very much appreciated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.104.119 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why the url with protocol removed is displayed in the GPL article, curious. Edited your edit to force that here (EUPL). Mike Linksvayer (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox edit problem 

message: Since the issues of the article are now nearly 6 years old, I think it might be time to re-evaluate them.
MeneerTijn (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance the article was in relatively good shape, I did some work to refactor it and make it more readable and to add more sources. If you also agree I think we can remove the issues templates. --Martsniez (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not me, but I agree as well. So after adding a few more citations, I removed most of the issues. I left the note about primary sources in place, for now; it seems more apt than the others. Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the issues still relevant?