[marc136]

I'm not sure if I understand correctly.

For me, it is mostly about "sharing the code" as in: I put it somewhere and anyone who wants can use it. But if they adapt or remix it, they should also use a free license (ideally contribute back to my project).

> in the sense that it does not prevent tivoization?

I'm not sure, but I guess it does not protect against tivoization because if I were to distribute an executable or library, that could be used on a blackbox with proprietary code without them requiring to open their own code.

[palata]

> For me, it is mostly about "sharing the code" as in

Sure, I did not express it correctly. I really just wondered about the tivoization.

> But if they adapt or remix it, they should also use a free license

I think that the code has to stay EUPL, but if you merge it into, say, a bigger GPL project, then the whole project can count as GPL. But the EUPL code inside stays EUPL, right?

[patemmschmitz]

You are right, there is a "double coverage". The EUPL just states that the compatible license (applied to the combined derivative work) will prevail in case it conflicts with the EUPL. But none of the listed compatible licenses (i.e. GPL-v2 or GPL-v3) prohibit, for example, the coverage of remote/SaaS distribution: they may not impose it (SaaS loophole) but allow it. So the EUPL code inside the combined derivative will stay covered by essential EUPL obligations, including the modified code sharing in case of remote distribution, even when the combined work is globally distributed under the GPL.