Worth noting that the "escape hatch" clauses in the EUPL that allow converting it into other licenses mean it's only ever as strong as the weakest license it names for such an operation, AKA EPL/MPL/LGPL.
Any actor that wants to mess around with providing a closed extension on a network service can exercise that option with an EUPL codebase, so if you care about that, you're better off explicitly naming the AGPL or whatnot.
EUPL is built for government agencies first, and most of the focus is ensuring that nobody has to worry about mix-and-matching it with other copyleft licenses, plus legal language that covers and harmonizes variations in notions of copyright/patents/intellectual property across EU countries, not so much waging war against hyperscalers. (But it's still great to have around!)
You are describing the compatibility clause as if it's settled that the EUPL simply allows you to convert to a compatible license. The compatibility clause is an unfortunate ambiguity, but it's not the intention of the license authors to lose strong copyleft and SaaS loophole protections this way. See for example here [1] [2] [3].
* BigTech can take your EUPL library and write a small wrapper in MPL
* such a wrapper can therefore be used in any project, even a closed one that is a network service.
* however all of that still qualifies as distributing EUPL, and the EUPL core would still need to be made available under EUPL (whether modified or not).
Saying that since I have an MPL wrapper then all the code is MPL is not allowed.
So you can't just copy all the code and change the license to MPL.
This is basically AGPL without virality and anti-tivo, correct?
On the face of it, no it doesn't say that. It just says the combined work can be MPL. Then someone can take that MPL work, and distribute it without source code because the MPL allows that. It explicitly says any conflict between the EUPL and the MPL shall be resolved in favor of the MPL.
A “conflict” is intended to mean the case that following some EUPL obligation (such as publishing the derived source code) wouldn’t be allowed under the alternative license.
> But as none of the compatible licenses come into conflict with the EUPL *by prohibiting the essential points* of publication of the source code and coverage of remote distribution (closing the SaaS loophole), these obligations, that are the core of the "reciprocal" condition, persist for the derivatives concerned.
aka: the compatible licenses do not put additional restrictions, so no, it is not MPL.
also, from the license:
> this Distribution or Communication can be done under the
terms of this Compatible Licence..
So you are allowed distribution, not relicensing.
To simplify It seems to me that:
* GPL will automatically make something GPL.
* EUPL will automatically make something selectively dual-licensing. parts EUPL, parts whatever.
Also do note that EUPL is the first license to explicitly state that any issues fall under EU(Belgium) law, so EU has the last say on its license.
I read a few dozen comments to see if I could get an answer to this in the thread, but it does appear to be a case where we're highlighting one of the risks of picking up a new license: folks don't agree on how to interpret it.
I'm very curious why the author didn't simply use AGPL, but I haven't done a deep dive on the text of the EUPL, so maybe that's the next step.
EDIT: Went to go research this. First thing I learned is the license has been around since 2007. It was updated in 2017. So maybe scratch my comment about it being a new license!
We found it pretty easy to build a little k8s controller for our own purposes to do this -- see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48478994 . You probably don't need to implement this as a plugin or hook, pgdog supports dynamic reload of its configuration without dropping existing connections.
Although I'm the type to shy away from adding extra layers in my architectures when I can help it, pgdog has been an absolute breeze to use :)
Considering "I Can Has Cheezburger" and that kind of lolspeak is nearly 20 years old now, I'm not surprised to see some people unfamiliar with it nowadays :-)
We successfully did this with pgdog at $JOB using our own "controller" -- the same service that handles deploying new instances of our application (instancing an argoCD Application that fires Crossplane DB creation, making new Deployments of bricks, etc) will also, at the end of that process, scan the cluster for Database CRDs, use those to generate a new pgdog.toml + users.toml, update the Secrets in the cluster, enable maintenance mode on all pgdog pods, do a live config reload on each of them, then disable maintenance mode (this is to make the change atomic between all the pgdog instances). Downtime there is about 2-3 seconds and all it does is make new SQL requests from existing clients wait, it doesn't break the connection or anything.
The obvious AI headings, pointless genned image of people (I'm starting to think islam had a point with discouraging depictions of human figures), and especially the blurry, artifacted, distractingly skeuomorphic diagram, with random wire traces going everywhere... this is a technical blog, not an investor sales pitch! Every time I see one of these, I have to double-check for a second if I'm not on some phishing SEO site!
If even Google, previously a gold standard of technical writing, is falling prey to this kind of laziness, then I have nothing to worry about -- knowing how to write without a language model in the driver's seat is gonna be a top tier skill in the future...
A damn shame too, as I've been following the progress of JXL in the standardization pipeline for a few years now and was quite interested in the historical breakdown, but all that's gonna stick with me from this is the disrespect I felt as a reader.
I spent 10+ years in building JPEG XL and I'm proud of the result. It wasn't always easy times. It is not so bad people can see what I look like and take a peek what the process was to get there.
This article is not about the entropy codes and predictors, memory bandwidth and decision trees, but about the long horizon planning in corporate-driven OSS efforts and being connected to both community and cross-industry.
That doesn't sound like a denial to me. Your years working on JPEGXL are extremely admirable, and you deserve to be recognized for it, but the gratuitous use of genAI in this post is also insulting to humans. The world isn't improved by a fabricated photo of a fake setting with an actor looks like you but isn't standing in front of a white board that says basically nothing.
I made that AI rendering and consider it demonstrates the conceptual discussions we had likely better than what an actual whiteboard drawing would look like. An actual whiteboard drawing from our day to day work would be very confusing without a lot of context and discussion. I have to admit that whiteboard drawings were somewhat rare in our real JPEG XL development, but it has been an intensively collaborative effort.
> consider it demonstrates the conceptual discussions
Photos do not, cannot, demonstrate discussions except in the most superficial and pointless way.
There are two reasons to show a photo of anything: 1) To share the experience of having been in a particular place in a particular moment of time, 2) to share what something looks like. Your image does not share an experience of having been in a particular place in a particular moment of time, because the place and time depicted are fake. Nor does it share anything about the discussion itself, because the content depicted is fake.
Is the fact that google has white boards an important part of your story? The only thing you've shown is a demonstration of what standing in front of a white board looks like. Not even a real white board. Not even real you.
If you want people to know what you look like, show an actual photo of yourself, not AI slop.
> An actual whiteboard drawing from our day to day work would be very confusing
Parent comment says I should not be known and my picture should not be on the blog post. I just want to disagree with that. In my opinion JPEG XL is a notable success and it is also ok to celebrate us, its makers.
Your technical achievements will help make the web a better platform (here hoping that browsers in general adopt JPEG XL sooner rather than latter). I've not seen anyone in the thread asking for you to not be credited for your work, or that you should not be known in general. Also, attaching your picture and some biographical info in that article is cool and expected, no problem there.
But.. that image isn't your picture, is it? It's a gen AI simulacrum. It's 2026, the uncanny valley causes visceral, immediate rejection in some subset of people. People that recoil in disgust at the sight of that.. thing pretending to be real? Since 2022, it's like our world became an eternal black mirror episode
(a more serious problem would be the prose itself being AI generated, but honestly reading it I am not sure)
Gen AI (both images and text) does not help your technical writing stand out. It doesn't help to illustrate better the points made in the article. If anything it debases your work and your own image
> I should not be known and my picture should not be on the blog post
That is the opposite of what parent comment says. It took offence on a generated photo of you. It would have been better to not have anything than a generated image.
That is not what the parent comment says at all. The parent comment says that an actual photo of yourself doing literally anything at all would have been better and less insulting to your readers than AI slop.
... with a high-resolution scan of the work itself available for download, to boot. I really appreciate whenever museums go out of their way to share those publically! Much better than many paintings only officially available as some 400px thumbnail.
Yes! I visited Rijksmuseum a few years ago with a close friend and I liked the painting "The Gulf of Naples with the Island of Ischia in the Distance" very much. I downloaded the high quality scan from the painting's museum web page[1] and got it printed onto a canvas to hang in our apartment. We really enjoy its presence with my wife!
Oh hey, Tixl on HN! It's probably my favorite piece of FOSS creative software, and honestly blows After Effects out of the water for me (as a hobbyist who likes cooking up some vis for my DJ sets).
I'm not kidding when I say it has the potential to become the blender for 2D/3D VFX -- the node engine is super powerful, the primitive building blocks are all well thought-out and integrate with each other very nicely, the performance characteristics are amazing (all optimized for realtime!), and there's a ton of I/O for everything from mouse input to OSC/MIDI, camera control, elaborate audio reaction... and also just plain TCP/UDP/HTTP/Websockets! It's such a powerful glue piece, but also tons of fun to mess around with on its own.
The best part? You can create your own components, define your inputs/outputs, and compose them together. The even bestest part? You can dig into the predefined components/effects and see how they work, as they're very often implemented in the same way! The visual editor all drills down to C# in the end, and you can drop into the code or write some HLSL shaders if you want, all with hot reloading.
> (as a hobbyist who likes cooking up some vis for my DJ sets)
I generally get really annoyed when I hear someone say that a particular piece of open-source or free-as-in-beer software “blows After Effects out of the water”[0], but not here: I appreciate you describing your use case so people have the right expectations going in. It sounds like this is more trying to compete with offerings like Touch Designer or Resolume than AE, which feels like a space with much more opportunity for disruption (without having a huge full-time team working for years in obscurity).
[0] I want someone to do to After Effects what Blender is doing to Cinema4D and Maya (provide a competitive free alternative to people who don’t need corporate deals and support plans). Every piece of software that people usually mention falls short in huge ways. I think a lot of people get into this space not realizing how difficult it is just to have a real-time scrubbable timeline that intelligently caches intermediate steps to disk and can render at lower resolutions to save time. So many alternatives absolutely chug once you have 10 1080p tracks with mattes and different effects. And then you’ve got color space transforms and all the different HDR things and a million other features that users of After Effects often forget are features.
> I generally get really annoyed when I hear someone say that a particular piece of open-source or free-as-in-beer software “blows After Effects out of the water”[0], but not here
It bothered me because the phrase suggests a favorable comparison to After Effects, when in fact After Effects really isn't the right tool for a job that needs real-time motion graphics. It's like saying Inkscape blows VS Code out of the water, for drawing SVGs.
I want this to happen, but this past month I tried using Blender’s Video Editor (after hearing the great news about Compositor Modifiers) and boy oh boy does it chug. Apparently Compositor Modifiers only run on the CPU, so trying to apply them to a track of 1080p footage totally locked up my Ryzen 7950X and froze the UI for a few minutes while it tried to render the preview.
I’m hoping GPU Compositor Modifiers aren’t too much of a lift, but at the moment they’re not actively being worked on (and I don’t have the expertise to do it myself) so I’d guess it’s at least about a year before this feature becomes usable for anything beyond really simple compositing with super-crunchy proxies.
I think a lot of people get into this space not realizing how difficult it is just to have a real-time scrubbable timeline that intelligently caches intermediate steps to disk
As someone who's been looking to get into video creation and motion graphics as a hobby, usually people recommend davinci resolve as an alternative. Which, apart from enshittifying and not being open source, the motion graphics part seems like a bit of an afterthought.
I’ve gotten so frustrated with AE the past couple years that my New Year’s resolution is to bite the bullet and try Resolve for my next couple projects. I’m even willing to splurge for the license if it means I can stop paying Adobe every month. I’m in a place where I definitely need a lot of AE’s pro features and performance, but I’m not locked into the plugin ecosystem, so I have a bit more flexibility than some other people.
Any actor that wants to mess around with providing a closed extension on a network service can exercise that option with an EUPL codebase, so if you care about that, you're better off explicitly naming the AGPL or whatnot.
EUPL is built for government agencies first, and most of the focus is ensuring that nobody has to worry about mix-and-matching it with other copyleft licenses, plus legal language that covers and harmonizes variations in notions of copyright/patents/intellectual property across EU countries, not so much waging war against hyperscalers. (But it's still great to have around!)
reply