He has modified EUPL (bad idea to modify licenses) so it recreates one of the problems he has with AGPL (that a lot of companies will not use software licensed under it). If anything EUPL is less attractive to those companies if they are outside the EU as it imposes EU jurisdiction.
Other people might see the above as an advantage, as you can dual license and those who do not like AGPL can buy a commercial license.
He has misunderstood the AGPL (there is no requirement to send changes to the original developer, only make them available to users).
His modification of EUPL is to explicitly remove one of his advantages, by reducing compatibility with all but two (AGPL and OSL).
h
It looks like his EUPL is not compatible with the EU's EUPL as a result of that modification, and the only way to mix the two would be to license as OSL or AGPL.
>If anything EUPL is less attractive to those companies if they are outside the EU as it imposes EU jurisdiction.
So then for people who are living inside EU it is a good ideal to use this license instead of AGPL if they don't want their code ended up in some transnational big corp for example?
Other people might see the above as an advantage, as you can dual license and those who do not like AGPL can buy a commercial license.
He has misunderstood the AGPL (there is no requirement to send changes to the original developer, only make them available to users).
His modification of EUPL is to explicitly remove one of his advantages, by reducing compatibility with all but two (AGPL and OSL). h It looks like his EUPL is not compatible with the EU's EUPL as a result of that modification, and the only way to mix the two would be to license as OSL or AGPL.