> But as none of the compatible licenses come into conflict with the EUPL *by prohibiting the essential points* of publication of the source code and coverage of remote distribution (closing the SaaS loophole), these obligations, that are the core of the "reciprocal" condition, persist for the derivatives concerned.

aka: the compatible licenses do not put additional restrictions, so no, it is not MPL.

also, from the license:

> this Distribution or Communication can be done under the terms of this Compatible Licence..

So you are allowed distribution, not relicensing.

To simplify It seems to me that:

* GPL will automatically make something GPL.

* EUPL will automatically make something selectively dual-licensing. parts EUPL, parts whatever.

Also do note that EUPL is the first license to explicitly state that any issues fall under EU(Belgium) law, so EU has the last say on its license.