Developer Swaps MIT License for EUPL to Close 'SaaS Loophole'

Software developer Henri Bergius, known as 'Bergie,' has announced a fundamental shift in his licensing strategy, moving from permissive licenses to the European Union Public License (EUPL) 1.2. The move signals a rejection of the permissiveness that has dominated the industry for over a decade in favor of 'free software' copyleft principles.

Bergius, who has published software for 28 years, is transitioning his default strategy away from the MIT license, which he utilized for JavaScript projects starting around 2011. His licensing history has evolved through three distinct eras: beginning with the LGPLv2 for Midgard, moving to MIT, and now settling on the EUPL. This change is driven by the belief that permissive licenses have primarily benefited billionaires and large corporations rather than the developers who write the code or the users who rely on it.

The SaaS Loophole

The choice of EUPL 1.2 is strategic. As an OSI-approved strong copyleft license, the EUPL is designed to close the 'SaaS loophole.' In many traditional copyleft frameworks, companies can use modified open-source code in the cloud without contributing changes back, as no formal 'distribution' of the software occurs. The EUPL mandates reciprocal licensing regardless of the distribution method, ensuring corporate entities cannot privately profit from public work without giving back to the community.

Beyond its reciprocal requirements, the EUPL provides a non-US-centric legal framework. It is uniquely positioned for international use, featuring legally valid official translations in 23 different languages, providing a level of global legal certainty that many US-based licenses lack.

A Shift in Ideology

This transition reflects growing tension within the developer community regarding the exploitation of open-source labor by 'big tech.' Bergius argues that the industry's shift toward permissiveness was a mistake. "Over the years it has been clear that we in the 'open source' camp (as opposed to the 'free software' camp) were wrong all along," Bergius wrote on his blog. "We won the debate, and gained little for users or developers."

By adopting a strong copyleft stance, Bergius asserts that the terms of use should be dictated by the creator, not the consumer. He noted that if corporations are unwilling to operate under these reciprocal terms, "they are free to spend the effort or tokens to build their own."

What's Next

As more independent creators evaluate the impact of cloud computing on software freedom, the adoption of licenses like the EUPL may grow. The industry continues to watch whether this trend toward strong copyleft can effectively force a return to reciprocal contribution from major cloud providers or if it will lead to further fragmentation of the open-source ecosystem.