Are those the same people that oppose switching to electric stoves because they supposedly perform so much worse?

It seems like the vast majority of US-Americans oppose this which doesn’t make sense if they never cook.

Nö, LKW.

But have you considered: systematic prison violence and rape = funny?

It’s not cruel or unusual if it’s only encouraged, not done, by the state.

15 years is the maximum¹ sentence for murder over here. Armed threats are a serious offense but not to this extent.

¹ you may be kept longer for security reasons if a judge deems you to pose a threat after that time.

It’s calling a function without a parameter.

You know how in math you had something like:

f(x) = x²

Not all functions need parameters though. The function:

f(x) = 2

does not even use the provided x! So just leave it out:

f() = 2

Similarly, you could give a function two parameters:

f(x, y) = x + y

Programmers use functions to primarily organize their code. Otherwise it would get very unreadable very quickly. Those function are usually a bit more complicated than a single line, though.

dog.walk() would call the walk() function of “dog”. Some valid code could be:

dog.walk()
wait(10)
dog.stop()

This code would make the dog walk for 10 seconds assuming every function used is actually defined somewhere.

Even though this isn’t C, but if we take from the C11 draft §6.8.5 point 6 (https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf):

An iteration statement whose controlling expression is not a constant expression, that performs no input/output operations, does not access volatile objects, and performs no synchronization or atomic operations in its body, controlling expression, or (in the case of a for statement) its expression-3, may be assumed by the implementation to terminate

“new Random().nextInt()” might perform I/O though so it could still be defined behavior. Or the compiler does not assume this assumption.

But an aggressive compiler could realize the loop would not terminate if x does not become 10 so x must be 10 because the loop can be assumed to terminate.

Infinite loops are often weird though. They could be seen as undefined behavior and the compiler may do whatever it feels like.

Not sure about the last one though. The other two are trivial to optimize away.

Electron might have OS specific bugs.

Better build it with Electron and only distribute it as a Windows VM.

I’m a neutrino male myself.

The products are largely illegal to sell in the EU. They regularly fail health standards and safety standards because those are expensive.

That’s why the customer is the importer instead for these apps. You’re allowed to import stuff that is illegal to sell to consumers after all.

Was bedeutet denn überhaupt das Bild?

Sieht mir nicht danach aus, jemandem aus dem Papierkram zu ziehen sondern eher wie ein Ergreifen der Hand des Papiergottes, auf dass man selber in den Papierkram gezohen wird:

Oh, I didn’t consider the “any other” aspect.

Welp, I can still register several distinct legal entities in different EU countries, can’t I? Maybe one could be a “Taking every EUPL work on the internet and relicensing it under LGPL as a service” company. That’s bound to make some money from SaaS companies if it would be this easy to purge the EUPL terms.

Though the “ideology” quote is a bit awful, I’ll give you that. The matrix itself does look fairly neutral though, especially with this part under “Discussion of Linking”:

We made the assumption that, by selecting a Gnu license, licensors follow the FSF position and want to consider that most cases of static linking create a derivative.

I’d also argue the 27 legal systems might not be too relevant since copyright law is generally equal in the different member states. The remaining legal issues (e.g. warranty) are irrelevant for interoperabilith between licenses. Also, most importantly, there are only 24 languages in the EU.

If the official guidelines are recognized by courts as legally binding then I think the EUPL is superior to even the AGPL. Sadly that remains to be seen due to the lack of EUPL projects out there (and the lack of corresponding lawsuits).

A lot of the discussion seems to be US centric though, such as this quote:

Courts have a strong tendency to read licences on their faces, that is to say, they look only to the text of the licence to determine rights and obligations. In some cases, courts have explicitly refused [link to https://creativecommons.org/2017/07/06/cc-amicus-brief/] amicus briefs from the authors of the licences who wished to clarify the intended interpretation of their text.

Since this links to a US court decision, I believe the first part also refers to the US. As little as I know about EU law, what I do know is that it is often intentionally vague to ensure the spirit of the law cannot be violated. That seems to be the same for the EUPL where vagueness is preferred over concrete definitions which may hold up even worse in (EU) court due to the limitations on copyright law.

The weaker licenses don’t even mention SaaS so they aren’t in conflict with the EUPL there. As such, the EUPL’s copyleft protections should still remain for code published under it, even when used in an MPL project.

I’m imagining it as a pseudo-dual license permission and the EUPL as some sort of Affero-LGPL.

Though SaaS vendors would probably comply maliciously and only send EUPL code snippets back when requesting source code, if they are used in a differently licensed project.

I am not an expert in copyright law, which is what these licenses are based upon and cannot analyze the text.

Still, couldn’t you make it even more straightforward by forking twice yourself?

1. Take the original EUPL code and fork it under the LGPL
2. Take the LGPL code and fork it under the LGPL
3. This second fork has all EUPL conditions removed

I’d by surprised if the license authors did not consider this. Lawyers wrote this with consideration of EU law after all, not some laypeople.

If I had to guess: Any inclusion of EUPL code in another project would have to be marked as being under the EUPL. This is solely to inform anyone who wants to fork this section and distribute the code in form of SaaS to abide by source code requests.

It’s like an EU variant of the AGPL whose many conditions about linking apparently don’t hold up in EU court. The GPL’s are all primarily considering US copyright law after all.

I can only answer the first question:

The great thing about the EUPL is: Its terms prevail if the other license does not have conflicting provisions. Any code licensed under EUPL will keep the SaaS restrictions:

However, according to the EUPL, the compatible licence that is applied to a derivative work will prevail “in case of conflict” with the EUPL. For example, when the EUPL licensor has its seat in Germany, the applicable law is German and the court is Berlin, but if the code is reused in a French project distributed under CeCILL, the French law will be applicable and the competent court will be Paris. But on the strongest open source EUPL provisions, like the coverage of SaaS and the obligation to publish and share the derivative source code, none of the listed compatible licences enters in conflict with the EUPL: for example, they may not “impose” code distribution in case of SaaS distribution, but they do not prohibit it. Therefore the EUPL obligations are persistent.

https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/matrix-eupl-compatible-open-source-licences

That’s wrong. The EUPL’s strictest provisions remain in effect even when used in other licenses:

However, according to the EUPL, the compatible licence that is applied to a derivative work will prevail “in case of conflict” with the EUPL. For example, when the EUPL licensor has its seat in Germany, the applicable law is German and the court is Berlin, but if the code is reused in a French project distributed under CeCILL, the French law will be applicable and the competent court will be Paris. But on the strongest open source EUPL provisions, like the coverage of SaaS and the obligation to publish and share the derivative source code, none of the listed compatible licences enters in conflict with the EUPL: for example, they may not “impose” code distribution in case of SaaS distribution, but they do not prohibit it. Therefore the EUPL obligations are persistent.

The EUPL 1.2 also allows directly relicensing to GPLv3, I don’t know where they got the idea you cannot do so.

Large parts of the GPLs are also void (e.g. providing “zero warranty/liability” and provisions regarding dynamic linking) according to EU case law.

The EUPL is effectively a interoperable strong copyleft license. It tries to prevent license incompatibilities due to “virality”.

I strongly recommend reading these two articles, they are much more accurate than the FSF’s:

https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/licence-compatibility-permissivity-reciprocity-and-interoperability

https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/matrix-eupl-compatible-open-source-licences

This configuration does make sense though. Sometimes there are sections where you cannot build two-way rail. Especially for trams/trolleys that’s the case, because of existing narrow roads.

You aren’t really meant to direct the incoming trolley from the left onto the upper rail ever though.

Occasionally Imgur is blocked but you can just switch the VPN to a less populous country and it will not be blocked. Still annoying though.