I don't understand how that's supposed to work - then you can't distribute under the compatible license; only under a weird hybrid of that license and non-conflicting EUPL terms. Seems to defeat the purpose of the compatibility clause?
Yes, I agree, it’s unclear how the EUPL requirements would propagate for a composite work that gets relicensed under the compatible license, without changing the latter.
Yes, I agree, it’s unclear how the EUPL requirements would propagate for a composite work that gets relicensed under the compatible license, without changing the latter.