# Software Publisher Says He Is Moving Recent Releases to EUPL-1.2
The author behind bergie.iki.fi says he has changed the default license for his recent software releases to the European Union Public License 1.2, describing the move as a break from the permissive licensing habits that shaped earlier parts of his career. The post is dated 2026-09-06 and reads as a direct explanation of why he thinks the switch matters.
He says his software history has come in three stages. Midgard was released under LGPLv2, a later wave of JavaScript work moved to MIT, and after a quieter period he has now returned to publishing under EUPL-1.2. The author says this latest choice is not just symbolic. It reflects a desire to make reuse more reciprocal and to place stronger conditions on companies that take from open software without giving much back.
The key technical distinction is that EUPL is strong copyleft. The author says that makes it different from the permissive model popularized by JavaScript ecosystems, because it closes the SaaS loophole and requires reciprocal licensing even when software is offered as a service. That point is central to the post’s argument: if a company benefits from the code, it should also be bound by the same obligations to share improvements under the license terms.
The essay goes beyond licensing mechanics and turns into a broader critique of open source culture. The author argues that the open-source side won the argument over adoption, but not over distribution of value. In his view, permissive licensing made it easier for large corporations to build products more cheaply while leaving developers and users with less control over the upside. He presents the new default license as a correction to that imbalance rather than a purely legal preference.
The post also notes that EUPL includes official translations in 23 languages, which the author treats as a practical advantage in a globally distributed software world. He says that matters because software is built and used far beyond the Bay Area, and because legal accessibility is part of real-world adoption. He also says the new rewrite of NoFlo Development Environment will use EUPL, while NoFlo itself remains MIT-licensed because it was already established and has third-party contributions.
For developers reading the announcement, the underlying message is clear: licensing is part of product strategy and community politics, not a housekeeping detail. The author is using a license choice to draw a line about how software should circulate, who should benefit from it and what obligations should follow commercial use.
