Merlijn Sebrechts

Teaching and researching software engineering @ Ghent University & imec

Ubuntu Community Council, Snapcrafters admin

Opinions are my own, not speaking as any of these roles.

🏳️‍🌈

Pronouns: He/Him
Website: https://merlijn.sebrechts.be/

Last Notes

2025-10-02 15:41:23 GMT

A social media platform with only AI-generated content? AI chatbots marketed as friends and girlfriends?
Am I really getting too old to understand what people want, or are these just desperate attempts to keep the music going a little bit longer before the AI bubble bursts?

2025-09-13 22:46:27 GMT

- reply

Le-le-le-lego!

2025-09-08 15:04:17 GMT

- reply

You can find the official response from the Ubuntu Community Council here: https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/on-discourse-rules-about-politics/66986
We're all volunteers and I've been working all day and working on policy changes and updates in between my day-job. We chose to first update the policies before adding an official response. Maybe we should've done it in a different order.

2025-03-20 18:33:46 GMT

Welp, it looks like it might be best to avoid traveling to the US for a while.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/trump-musk-french-scientist-detained

2024-08-18 16:16:59 GMT

- reply

If the DB is EUPL, then your modifications to the database need to be open source. Not the rest of your application. The EUPL is a "weak copyleft" license.
However, I want to add that most questions about copyleft licenses are answered by "you can't know unless a judge tells you". This is the exact reason why many companies avoid copyleft licenses.
I think you're right in going towards the permissive route if that's something you have an issue with.

2024-08-18 16:10:36 GMT

- reply

I agree that CLAs inherently create a power imbalance towards the owner of the IP. And I agree that this is not in the spirit of FOSS.
Closing the SaaS loophole has nothing to do with CLAs however. Companies will keep using CLAs with or without the SaaS loophole. These Affero-like licenses do not require CLAs. Certain companies do, but that's the thing we should be campaigning against.

2024-08-18 15:59:34 GMT

- reply

Just wanted to note that this is the same legal grey zone as the GPL's copyleft language. Large enterprises will often err towards the safe side, which is exactly what we want. We want companies to avoid copyleft software if they're not comfortable open sourcing their modifications.

2024-08-18 15:54:05 GMT

- reply

Yes, we agree on the "does not work" part.
Given we agree on that, isn't the EUPL the best way to try to close the SaaS loophole?
Worst case, it has the same reach as the GPL. Best case, it actually solves the SaaS loophole, and SaaS users get the same freedoms as regular software users.

2024-08-18 15:49:48 GMT

- reply

But I don't think it matters much whether it will hold up in court.
What you're saying is that the EUPL either does not work, or is an EULA. This is false, because the EUPL copyleft functions by equating SaaS to distribution.
If this holds up in court, the EUPL is not limiting "usage" but limiting "distribution". If it does not hold up in court, then the EUPL is still not limiting "usage".

2024-08-18 15:41:54 GMT

- reply

In case of the EUPL, it argues that that simply giving users access to the core functionality of a piece of software makes you a distributor. Whether code executes server-side or client-side doesn't matter. What matters is whether you give users access only to results (=SaaS is running software) or to the entire software functionality (=SaaS is distributing software).

2024-08-18 15:38:42 GMT

- reply

Right, results indeed don't hold the original copyright. Performances do, results don't.

2024-08-18 15:16:50 GMT

- reply

It indeed is. Copyright law also covers playing the music in public. You do not have to transmit the work itself to fall under distribution. Transmitting an execution of the work is enough to make you a distributor.

2024-08-18 15:09:54 GMT

- reply

I'm happy to send you more references, but I also want to clarify that EU is governed under civil law, not common law (like the US). This means the concept of legal precedent is not used as it is in the US. Precedent case law is non-binding.

2024-08-18 15:05:58 GMT

- reply

Note that the EUPL specifically states that it is governed by EU law, not US law. The references you're mentioning are from US law.

2024-08-18 15:01:19 GMT

- reply

The difference between "sharing output" vs "sharing the work" is in whether you give users access to a core piece of software's functionality.
Sending the result of a database query to your users is not "communicating". However, allowing users to run arbitrary queries as if it was their DB is "communicating".
The concept ensures that users accessing a piece of software remotely get the same freedoms and rights as users running the software locally.

2024-08-18 14:56:36 GMT

- reply

The concept of "Communication to the public" is part of the 2001 InfoSoc Directive.
>[communication to the public] should be understood in a broad sense covering all communication to the public not present at the place where the communication originates. This right should cover any such transmission or retransmission of a work to the public by wire or wireless means, including broadcasting. This right should not cover any other acts.
This includes SaaS

2024-08-18 14:53:44 GMT

- reply

This is simply not how copyright law works.
The EUPL does not limit usage, it limits distribution. It explicitly equates SaaS to distribution [1]. This is a common concept in EU copyright law called "Communication to the public".
When you show a movie to an audience, you are a distributor, not a user. When you give others access to a running instance of EUPL code, you are equally a distributor, not an end user.
[1]: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/how-use-eupl#heading4967