For what I understood it allows the freedom of the BSDs together with the virality of the GPLs, and is that kind of license that is prone to protect the users rather than the authors.
EUPL says it's supposed to be like LGPL. GPL allows use with it through dynamic linking, if the GPL code makes the exception for EUPL. Perhaps that's considered part of a larger work. GPL has problems with compatibility. Other instances depend on how FSF wants to interpret its GPL licenses for compatibility, and what it states is a good exception.
For now, EUPL looks like a good LGPL alternative, which LGPL allows dynamic linking. Dynamic linking is good enough. EUPL allows static linking with other licenses which allows it, which is better. LGPL2 and permissive licenses have more default widespread use than EUPL, because they by default have compatibility with GPL2 and GPL3. EUPL doesn't have default compatibility, and has to be allowed by the authors.
EUPL makes clear that a restrictive constraint is different than a requirement, which is why GPL is allowed to absorb BSD licensed code, because maintaining the BSD license disclaimer is a requirement, rather than a use restriction.
I was arguing for a license similar to LGPL to protect code, while allowing any other use of linked code. Whether or not that be compatible with GPL, due to their unnecessary restrictions. If EUPL allows GPL to use it through dynamic linking too, that's even better. I was for gradually replacing the GPL, by using better licenses.
I was also arguing for a license that keeps its hold on all derivatives forever, but allows freedom through linking, so that no matter how many forks there are, preserving anyone will preserve the spirit of lost code. Also, to prevent code from getting locked away from the code under this license. We could recreate lost code in the spirit of code which was forgotten or lost.
Here's a nightmare scenario made possible by the GPLs.
LGPL, GPL, GPLv2 and GPLv3 all have a clause that permits relicensing the work under a newer version of the GPL. Think well into the future long after some of us are gone from this world. The ideals spouted by RMS are forgotten. What survives is a kind of brand loyalty where the Linux brand is treated like Gucci or Fanta. Imagine the FSF gets co-opted by corporate interests
LGPL2 offers the most compatibility of the GPL's with other code. LGPL3 lacks compatibility with use with GPL. In essence, the problem you described allows LGPL and permissive licenses to get locked away into that ecosystem of license. It likely won't happen to that extreme, but I like it so that code is permanently kept from any such scenario.
As long as any copy exists under the more permissive license, than GPL or worse, the nightmare scenario, that copy will last as long as the project. The type of license I argue for, which may not currently exist, is meant to be eternal, no matter how many projects die out, as long as one copy remains.
I was also wanting something less viral than GPL, which had clear defined limits, especially on dependencies of it, had freedom to use any opensource library, or even as directory wide weak copyleft.
The Linux kernel for instance, isn't so bad for programs which use it, because it has a defined limit to how far the licenses reaches, at the API, other programs tend to forget this, and assume other software can be run with it. Where the Linux kernel is bad, is that it forces other drivers to be under LGPL2.
Also,
Thread whats-a-permissive-license-and-why-should-i-care.92068/. This relies on spreading permissive license ideology and relies on good will. It's great for original works, but its limit is at forks which choose to regress back to overly viral or restrictive licensing. I'm for something more that indefinitely locks in freedom of use for all iterations and that indefinitely prevents code from getting locked into something extremely viral or theoretically worse.
www.theregister.com
