IANAL but that could mean that if I take the code of EUPL project Work and I fork it as Libre Work and add a very minor and useless feature that uses another work licensed with some GPL license (not difficult because I can pick the dependency by license,) I have a derivative work that I can distribute under GPLv2.
However it seems strange that they didn't think about that. Maybe it's only a bad choice of words, which is equally strange.
> However it seems strange that they didn't think about that. Maybe it's only a bad choice of words, which is equally strange.
I think it is just a different intend.
To my understanding, the EUPLv1.2 is structured as a weak copy-left license in the spirit of the MPLv2 but with a major effort on license compatibility.
The intend seems to never be a "strong license" that enforce "strong copyleft" like the GPLv3 / AGPL everywhere.
It is more to give a license under which you can create a project that blend a lot of different component under different licenses (GPL, MPL and co) without requiring an army of lawyer to check the compatibility of this mess.
That is currently immensely valuable in academic software and in large international collaborations.
It also clarify the License contamination behavior over Linking at European Level which is very welcome, because it is frankly speaking, a mess, with license like LGPL.
However it seems strange that they didn't think about that. Maybe it's only a bad choice of words, which is equally strange.