[wolfskaempf]

The fact that the EUPL is available in all the official languages of the Member States of the European Union is a very important aspect of the license for me. This means I could reasonably fight for the freedom of my software in the local courts available to me in my home country, which does not have English as an official language.

As the European Commission claims on their site, as one of the reasons they chose to create a new license instead of relying on those already available:

> The licence should have equal legal value in many languages.

In addition, the EUPL is not any license text some (from a legal perspective random) people came up with, but the text of the license was written and voted into law by the EU itself, therefore it can and does rightfully claim the following, which is invaluable to me as a FLOSS author residing in the EU.

> any litigation resulting from the interpretation of this License [...] will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union [...]

So even if the local courts interpretation in my home country falls short, the Court of Justice of the European Union will surely take into account the intended purpose of this license as laid out by the legislators of the EU.

[exabrial]

I've never see that detail, that's incredibly insightful. Granted, for outside the EU it doesn't win much, but I'm guessing most reasonable places would defer to what the host country intended.

That being said, as another commenter pointed out, the "make available as service" language is a bit weaker in EUPL than AGPL.