Yes, but this comes with restrictions on distribution of your binary/code/artifacts.

I see the value in these restrictions, but i also see why these libraries are avoided in commercial settings. These terms often come as a suprise from my understanding.

The EUPL solves this by only making claims of the actual modifications to the EUPL licensed components, not any third party user code.

This license (EUPL) was designed with cooperarion as the primary motive, and this is very valuable in my opinion.

I believe the reason we see so much permissive code is because of said suprises with the GPL’s, it defeats the utility of the license itself. I say this as an avid GPL lover, but i have also seen projects like libopencm3, which desperately needs EUPL.

On the other hand we have projects like Linux and VESC, where we absolutely positively need to kill user-exploatation dead in its tracks, mostly since it is an end-user product. The GPL serves its purpose perfectly here.

Also, you might note that the MPL is a valid choice here, but it does not offer the same protection in the case of third party extension of the licensed code, since it is file-based, in essence.

Ive actually spent a good amount of time looking into licenses, would love to hear more of your thoughts.

Here is a discussion and Here is the original author (i think) of the EUPL.

This is somewhat concerning, as im a big fan of working for free, as long as it benefits the users. I have also been looking at the EUPL as a happy middleground (it permits static linking, while any changes to the acual code is copyleft). Copyleft is important, and needs to be talked about.

Absolutely correct, its an insult to everyone involved. Open source would do, or just call it free without the ‘ware’