ModelingToolkit V11 Library Split and Licensing, Community Feedback Requested

[Sukera]

@mihalybaci

But a separate thread is definitely required to discuss the merits and drawbacks of different licenses.

E.g. Like

Package licenses: Contemplations and considerations

I’ve recently been giving more thoughts to the way I license my packages. While I don’t anticipate the choice becoming practically significant any times soon, I’ve realised that the topic probably deserves more consideration that I’ve previously given it. Why we need to think about licenses While many of us want to “just do (F)OSS” without paying much attention to licenses, they are an unavoidable part of the landscape due to the way intellectual property law has developed over the last several…

?

@mihalybaci

My immediate question would be, how does this clause affect non-EU persons and companies using the EUPL, such as JuliaHub?

You’d still be bound by this. This clause only affects the decision which court will handle disputes, which is the reason that this license is tied to EU law. Most other software licenses don’t have this, which results in a minefield of differences due to jurisdiction depending on where a suit is filed (of note: most interpretations of copyright law you can find in english online is chiefly about US copyright law, so may not even apply to you if you’re in the EU! If in doubt, contact a lawyer to help you navigate this.)

I personally am not a user of MTK, so my input may be only of limited interest, but I imagine that JuliaHub chose AGPL because it’s somewhat well known how a potential litigation would go in their jurisdiction. It’s a reasonable choice from that perspective, and even though there seems to be very little room for changing the detail of the license at this point, it’s good that this feedback is solicited.