We recently added the EUPL-1.2 to our list of Various Licenses and Comments About Them. This list helps users to understand whether a particular license is a free software license, and whether it is compatible with the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL). Like the previous version of the EUPL (EUPL-1.1), the EUPL-1.2 is included in the section for free licenses that are GNU GPL-incompatible, but with an important caveat. While the EUPL-1.2's copyleft by itself is incompatible with the GNU GPL, the license provides a few mechanisms for re-licensing which enable combination with GNU GPL-licensed works. We explain the situation more fully in the entry itself:

This is a free software license. By itself, it has a copyleft comparable
to the GPL's, and incompatible with it. However, it gives recipients
ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selected licenses,
and some of those—the Eclipse Public License in particular—only provide
a weaker copyleft. Thus, developers can't rely on this license to
provide a strong copyleft.

The EUPL allows relicensing to GPLv2 only and GPLv3 only, because those
licenses are listed as two of the alternative licenses that users may
convert to. It also, indirectly, allows relicensing to GPL version 3 or
any later version, because there is a way to relicense to the CeCILL v2,
and the CeCILL v2 gives a way to relicense to any version of the GNU GPL.

To do this two-step relicensing, you need to first write a piece of code
which you can license under the CeCILL v2, or find a suitable module
already available that way, and add it to the program. Adding that code
to the EUPL-covered program provides grounds to relicense it to the
CeCILL v2. Then you need to write a piece of code which you can license
under the GPLv3+, or find a suitable module already available that way,
and add it to the program. Adding that code to the CeCILL-covered
program provides grounds to relicense it to GPLv3+.

These comments are very similar to the ones we made for the EUPL-1.1, as the EUPL-1.2 is an update that is very much in line with its predecessor. The biggest change was adding the GNU GPLv3 only as an alternative license, simplifying the process of incorporating EUPL-1.2 code into a GNU GPLv3 only project. Note, however, that the two-step re-licensing process previously described is still needed in order to incorporate EUPL-1.2 code into a GNU GPLv3+ project.

With all that said, the EUPL-1.2 is the newest addition to our list of free licenses, but more will be added in the future. To keep up to date, here's what you can do:

• To keep informed about changes to our license list and other licensing-related news and announcements, subscribe to our Licensing Updates Mailing List
• Help us make a stand for software freedom by becoming an FSF Associate Member or consider making a donation

The 1990s have come back to haunt us as the US Congress attempts to extend the scope of copyright law again, just two decades after the last extension (which added twenty years to the terms of existing copyrights at the time), and this time their sights are set on the Internet.

Read on to learn more, including how to take action before Congress takes its next step with the bill, on Thursday, June 28.

Creative Commons founder and former Free Software Foundation (FSF) board member Lawrence Lessig recently explained the ugly consequences of the Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, and Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act, which was passed by the US House earlier this year and is now before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of the omnibus Music Modernization Act. Lessig has a long history in the realm of copyright law -- he was the lead counsel on an unsuccessful challenge to the previous extension of US copyright law, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.

The CLASSICS Act aims to fence in another arena in which users enjoy published works, Lessig writes, creating "a new digital performance right -- basically the right to control copies of recordings on any digital platform (ever hear of the Internet?) -- for musical recordings made before 1972" (hence the "cute" acronym, CLASSICS). The bill would grant such recordings a new "protection" through 2067, which actually means being copyright restricted for up to 144 years, compared to 95 years for print works from the same period.

Once again, this expansion of the scope of US copyright law flies in the face of the intention of the US Constitution, because its beneficiaries are not the public, nor artists, but corporate interests. Under the US Constitution, "copyright exists to benefit users...not for the sake of publishers or authors," and the Supreme Court has affirmed that intention -- the readers, music listeners, and audiences that experience copyrighted material are supposed to come first. In reality, US copyright law has acted as if the benefits to the public and to publishers are of equal importance, and as if its goal is to maximize the number of published works, thereby necessitating granting publishers maximum power. As a result, copyright law continues to grant publishers broader powers for increasing periods of time. (See "Misinterpreting Copyright" for an extensive examination of this problem.)

The consequences for music fans could be devastating, at a time when people increasingly use the Internet to listen to music, via digital music services and Web radio stations, according to reports from Nielsen and the Guardian. This bill will decrease access to recordings of music made between 1923 and 1972, because those who make such recordings available on the Internet will face serious legal consequences if they do so without a license.

The bill will inevitably further consolidate access to music recordings online, because those who cannot afford to pay licensing fees will risk fines if they defy the law. Big companies that already use Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) to stream music on the Web, from Sirius XM to Spotify, will have the advantage. As EFF reports, some already pay royalties for some of these recordings via private agreements with record labels -- smaller Web streamers are likely to be unable to manage the additional expense, or they could be shut out by exclusive licenses granted to bigger services.

Of greatest concern to the FSF is the effect this bill could have on free software for digital music, and the way it could allow DRM to grow on the Internet. Publishers often add DRM to their works under the guise of protection against copyright infringement, but in reality, DRM is a publisher's means of controlling every aspect of a piece of digital media -- and taking away user freedom. DRM is incompatible with free software, and its proliferation actively undermines widespread use of free software for digital media.

The CLASSICS Act was combined into an omnibus bill with the Musical Works Modernization Act and the Allocation for Music Producers (AMP) Act, and the Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the proposal on May 15, 2018 -- transcripts can be reviewed here (there is also video, but it requires nonfree JavaScript to view). The conversation largely omits a broader concern that ties together the effect of copyright overreach on arts and culture with its effect on free software: increased copyright restriction encourages lawsuits against people who share music. People become afraid to share digital media, believing sharing is theft.

Take action!

If you're not in the US, let us know your country by updating your profile so we can send you more relevant info. In the meantime, please also help us spread the word to your contacts in the US.

By Wednesday, June 27th, call a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (especially if you live in their home state) and urge them to strike the CLASSICS copyright expansion from the Music Modernization Act.

Committee members include Republicans Chuck Grassley* (Chair, IA), Orrin Hatch* (UT), John Cornyn (TX), Ted Cruz (TX), Jeff Flake (AZ), Thom Tillis* (NC), Lindsey Graham (SC), Michael Lee (UT), Ben Sasse (NE), Mike Crapo* (ID), John Kennedy* (LA); and Democrats Dianne Feinstein* (Ranking Member, CA), Patrick Leahy* (VT), Sheldon Whitehouse* (RI), Christopher Coons* (DE), Mazie Hirono* (HI), Kamala Harris* (CA), Dick Durbin* (IL), Amy Klobuchar* (MN), Richard Blumenthal* (CT), and Cory Booker* (NJ). Those members with asterisks following their names were cosponsors of the CLASSICS Act before it was merged with the Music Modernization Act or are cosponsors of the Music Modernization Act -- yes, nearly all members of the Judiciary Committee cosponsored at least one of the bills.

Not sure what to say? Try using the following script:

*Hello, I live in CITY/STATE. I am calling to urge you to stop the overzealous expansion of copyright in the Music Modernization Act. The text in the CLASSICS Act portion of the bill would expand copyright for recordings made before 1972, creating a barrier for music listeners by expanding the use of Digital Restrictions Management, which is incompatible with the free software I use to listen to digital music. This is not what the US Constitution intended copyright to be. I hope SENATOR will do the right thing and strike the CLASSICS Act portion of the Music Modernization Act. Thank you for your time.*

But how do I call the Senators?

• Find their numbers here.

• Dial the Senate at (202) 224-3121 and they will connect you.

• bison-3.0.5
• dfarc-3.14
• dr-geo-18.06
• emacs-26.1
• foliot-0.9.8
• freedink-3.14
• gdbm-1.15
• gnuastro-0.6
• gnuhealth-3.2.10
• gnupg-2.2.8
• gnu-pw-mgr-2.3.1
• gsl-2.5
• libgcrypt-1.8.3
• linux-libre-4.17.2-gnu
• nano-2.9.8
• parallel-20180622
• unifont-11.0.01
• units-2.17

For announcements of most new GNU releases, subscribe to the info-gnu mailing list: https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gnu.

To download: nearly all GNU software is available from https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/, or preferably one of its mirrors from https://www.gnu.org/prep/ftp.html. You can use the url https://ftpmirror.gnu.org/ to be automatically redirected to a (hopefully) nearby and up-to-date mirror.

A number of GNU packages, as well as the GNU operating system as a whole, are looking for maintainers and other assistance: please see https://www.gnu.org/server/takeaction.html#unmaint if you'd like to help. The general page on how to help GNU is at https://www.gnu.org/help/help.html.

If you have a working or partly working program that you'd like to offer to the GNU project as a GNU package, see https://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html.

As always, please feel free to write to us at maintainers@gnu.org with any GNUish questions or suggestions for future installments.

We recently updated our list of free GNU/Linux distributions to add a "Historical" section. BLAG Linux and GNU, based on Fedora, joined the list many years ago. But the maintainers no longer believe they can keep things running at this time. As such, they requested that they be removed from our list. The list helps users to find operating systems that come with only free software and documentation, and that do not promote any nonfree software. Being added to the list means that a distribution has gone through a rigorous screening process, and is dedicated to diligently fixing any freedom issues that may arise.

Maintaining a distribution isn't an easy task, and making sure that no nonfree software makes its way onto the operating system takes real effort. The maintainers of these distributions take on a difficult but important task of creating and maintaining a system that users can trust. For many, that effort is taken on as a volunteer, and one for which we should all be grateful.

While it is always sad to see a free distribution close up shop, we can all still be thankful for the maintainers' work over the years, and that there are still many free distributions available. Users of BLAG should consider switching to another distro on our list to ensure that the security of their system is up to date.