[OFFTOPIC] Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 09:36:11AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > That just begs the question: If they have no influence on the GFDL, Aieee. I see this all the time. "Begging the question" means "assuming the truth of that which was to be shown" -- in other words, treating your conclusion as a pr

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 06:40:53PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > Given that you were misinformed about the FSF's intentions [1] [...] > > [1] > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html > > I try to be very careful about what I write.

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 06:40:53PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > Given that you were misinformed about the FSF's intentions [1] [...] > [1] > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html I try to be very careful about what I write. The intentions weren't the FSF's,

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Anthony Towns writes: > Given there's more ambiguity in whether to apply the DFSG to documentation > than there is in whether the GFDL passes the DFSG, it seemed most > sensible just to exempt documentation from the DFSG for sarge; so that's > the policy. I don't think there is any ambiguity. H

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 02:38:36PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: > > I believe this comment is a mischaracterisation of the consensus that > > has developed on this list. Recently explained by Nathanael Nerode on > > the glibc mailing list: > >

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 11:00:06AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > If it weren't for the restrictions that copyright laws place upon us, we > > wouldn't ship these files at all. > > If no licenses were needed, nobody would be writing and shipping > licenses. The conclusion here is that copyright s

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:29:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote: > Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > > But since Debian distributes only software, and Invariants must be > > Secondary... actually, isn't the GNU Manifesto non-secondary when > > distributed as part of Debian GNU/What

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:29:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote: > > Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > > > But since Debian distributes only software, and Invariants must be > > > Secondary... actually, isn't the GNU Manifesto non-

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:37:46PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > I just request being respected > within a serious discussion. Is it too much to ask? Yes. Respect has to be earned at the best of times, and you've pretty successfully destroyed your supply for the next few months. -- .''`. ** D

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:07:41AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > J?r?me Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> J?r?me Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>> This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be > >>> acceptable (lik

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > But since Debian distributes only software, and Invariants must be > Secondary... actually, isn't the GNU Manifesto non-secondary when > distributed as part of Debian GNU/Whatever? There are even some immutable files in base-files that are obvi

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 03:08, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Quoting Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to > > > distribute something else than software. > > > > The social contract says Debian will remain 100% free software. Not that > >

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Scripsit =?iso-8859-1?b?Suly9G1l?= Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> But if I did agree with you, can you imagine the flame wars that >> would result if we had to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether >> or not Debian could permit and/or support various

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > We don't agree? So what? >> >> Oh, I certainly disagree with you, but that wasn't my point -- others >> are doing a fine job of making that argument. But if I did agree with >> you, can you imagine the

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:07:41AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Oh, I certainly disagree with you, but that wasn't my point -- others > are doing a fine job of making that argument. But if I did agree with > you, can you imagine the flame wars that would result if we had to > decide, on a case-b

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > We don't agree? So what? > > Oh, I certainly disagree with you, but that wasn't my point -- others > are doing a fine job of making that argument. But if I did agree with > you, can you imagine the flame wars that would result if we had to > decide

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be >>> acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not. >> >> My goodness. And we thought w

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be > > acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not. > > My goodness. And we thought we already had flame-war problems! We don't

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be > acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not. My goodness. And we thought we already had flame-war problems! -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Le mer 27/08/2003 à 10:43, Jérôme Marant a écrit : > > However, I believe Jérôme can read correctly and is not stupid; maybe he > > said that on purpose, and wants the social contract to be changed. > > I don't need a spokesman. Without clarification from your side, it was hard to know how to und

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:53:01 +0200, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Quoting Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > Not at all. I don't care being wrong. I just request being >> > respected within a serious discussion. Is it too much to ask? >> >> Oh, the irony. You want to be respec

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Quoting Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to > > distribute something else than software. > > The social contract says Debian will remain 100% free software. Not that > Debian's software will remain 100% free. Bruce Perens has alread

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Quoting Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Then you are also asserting that Jérôme is not fluent in French either. > The translated clause writes as: > « Debian demeurera un ensemble logiciel totalement libre. » > This sentence is perfectly clear, and can not be read as: > « L'ensemble des lo

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Le mer 27/08/2003 à 05:45, Nathanael Nerode a écrit : > Jerome Marant said: > >Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to > >distribute something else than software. > > >From this sentence, I see that you are not fluent in English. > ("It doesn't prevent Debian from distributin

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jerome Marant said: > >Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to > >distribute something else than software. > > >From this sentence, I see that you are not fluent in English. > ("It doesn't prevent Debian from distributing somet

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Quoting Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Not at all. I don't care being wrong. I just request being respected > > within a serious discussion. Is it too much to ask? > > Oh, the irony. You want to be respected by tohse you call > zealots and bigots? If you can make no difference

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Jerome Marant said: >Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to >distribute something else than software. >From this sentence, I see that you are not fluent in English. ("It doesn't prevent Debian from distributing something other than software" would be correct.) Perhaps this

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 23:37:46 +0200, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Quoting Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: >> > Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> > > Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

> Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > If we distribute it, it is currently not out of the scope of the DFSG. > > If you have a problem with this, write a GR -- but stop with the > > pointless grandstanding. On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Software in Debian is 100% free.

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On 2003-08-26 22:28:45 +0100 Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to > distribute something else than software. Are you deliberately misreading that? Here's the top levels of phrase structure for you: ((Debian) (is) (100% (free sof

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 16:28, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > If they'd be out of the scope of DFSG, why would we care of them being > > > there or not? I see nothing wrong in distributing Free Software > > > advocacy. > > > > If we distribute it, it is c

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Quoting Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said: > > ^^^ > > > > Considering your attitude,

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > If they'd be out of the scope of DFSG, why would we care of them being > > there or not? I see nothing wrong in distributing Free Software > > advocacy. > > If we distribute it, it is currently not out of the scope of the DFSG. > If you have a probl

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said: > ^^^ > > Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you > any longer. It is

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Jerome Marant said: >Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said: > ^^^ > >Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you >any longer. > >-- >Jérôme Marant My sincere apologies for the ton

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said: >I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be >considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall >not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you >wrote it, and so on. >There are limits everywher

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said: ^^^ Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you any longer. -- Jérôme Marant

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 01:27:41PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Quoting Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:14AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > > > > > Let's play fair now: > > > > > > >From WordNet (r) 1.7 : > > > > > > software > > >n : (compu

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Quoting Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:14AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > > > Let's play fair now: > > > > >From WordNet (r) 1.7 : > > > > software > >n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules > >and associated

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:14AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > Let's play fair now: > > >From WordNet (r) 1.7 : > > software >n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules >and associated documentation pertaining to the operation >of a compu

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 18:55, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >From Richard Stallman on the debian-legal list > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html): > >Second, the FSF is not working on changing the GFDL now. We intend to > >continue to use invariant sections th

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

>From Richard Stallman on the debian-legal list (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html): >Second, the FSF is not working on changing the GFDL now. We intend to >continue to use invariant sections that cannot be removed, as we have >always done. This seems t

Re: Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: The only "manpower" required should be a clause that allows converting the document to be under the GPL, much like the clause used in the LGPL. This would result in the most possible restrictions while still being GPL compatible. That would imply

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Quoting Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 03:18, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, > Version > > > 1.1 > > > > ... > > > > Requesting removal of GNU Emacs ma

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 03:18, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version > > 1.1 > > > ... > > Requesting removal of GNU Emacs manpages now? Better move Emacs to > non-free. Or take a free v

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version > 1.1 > > ... Requesting removal of GNU Emacs manpages now? Better move Emacs to non-free. > Not too mention all the clearly non-free cruft under etc/ (including > various e

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Warner wrote: > So what's your timeline for migration? Move Emacs into non-free today? > The .orig.tar.gz files contain what we consider non-DFSG-free files, and > .orig.tar.gz files in main and contrib are supposed to meet the DFSG. > With a migration plan, Ema

Re: Worries about GPLv3 (was Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy)

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:27, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Sunday, Aug 24, 2003, at 10:10 US/Eastern, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > > > One thing we are sure about, is that, according to RMS, FSF is aware > > of the GPL compatibility problem and is going to work this out, as soon > > as it gets enough

Worries about GPLv3 (was Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy)

On Sunday, Aug 24, 2003, at 10:10 US/Eastern, Jérôme Marant wrote: One thing we are sure about, is that, according to RMS, FSF is aware of the GPL compatibility problem and is going to work this out, as soon as it gets enough manpower. Considering how much they seem to want to keep, e.g., inva

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > The only "manpower" required should be a clause that allows converting > the document to be under the GPL, much like the clause used in the LGPL. > This would result in the most possible restrictions while still being > GPL compatible. That would

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 09:10, Jérôme Marant wrote: > One thing we are sure about, is that, according to RMS, FSF is aware > of the GPL compatibility problem and is going to work this out, as soon > as it gets enough manpower. The only "manpower" required should be a clause that allows converting th

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Anthony Towns wrote: > >In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some > >more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all > >gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies. > >Martin

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:33:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > My next post to -devel-announce will discuss some of these finer details. Is that still in the works? > In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some > more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Anthony Towns wrote: >In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some >more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all >gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies. >Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp. R

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 12:44:57PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > Anthony Towns wrote: > > > My next post to -devel-announce will discuss some of these finer details. > > In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some > > more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:33:37PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00092.html > > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I once had a big old nasty flamewar with the FTP admins that > > was tangentially related to this point

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:33:37 -0400 (EDT), Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:14:45 -0400 (EDT), Walter Landry >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> > The .orig.tar.gz files only have to be purged of non-free stuff >> > if tha

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 02:38:36PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: > > I believe this comment is a mischaracterisation of the consensus that > > has developed on this list. Recently explained by Nathanael Nerode on > > the glibc mailing list: > >

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:14:45 -0400 (EDT), Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > > The .orig.tar.gz files only have to be > > purged of non-free stuff if that stuff can't be distributed at all. > > AIUI, it is perfectly acceptable to have non-fre

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:14:45 -0400 (EDT), Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:00, Peter S Galbraith wrote: >> > I'd rather we stick to our principles, but clearly there isn't a >> > consensus on that. >> >> That's a low blo

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Anthony Towns wrote: > My next post to -devel-announce will discuss some of these finer details. > In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some > more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all > gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger co

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 02:38:36PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: > I believe this comment is a mischaracterisation of the consensus that > has developed on this list. Recently explained by Nathanael Nerode on > the glibc mailing list: >

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:00, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > I'd rather we stick to our principles, but clearly there isn't a > > consensus on that. > > That's a low blow. > > So what's your timeline for migration? Move Emacs into non-free today? > The .orig.

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:00, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > I believe this comment is a mischaracterisation of the consensus that > > has developed on this list. Recently explained by Nathanael Nerode on > > the glibc mailing list: > >

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 13:12, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > [message BCCed to aj] > > > > > > > > I wanted you all to be aware how Sar

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 13:12, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > [message BCCed to aj] > > > > > > I wanted you all to be aware how Sarge is treating Documentation and the > > > DFSG:

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > [message BCCed to aj] > > > > I wanted you all to be aware how Sarge is treating Documentation and the > > DFSG: > > > >Documentation in

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > [message BCCed to aj] > > I wanted you all to be aware how Sarge is treating Documentation and the > DFSG: > >Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable, >and wher

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 09:52:00PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: > I wanted you all to be aware how Sarge is treating Documentation and the > DFSG: > >Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable, >and wherever possible shou

Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Hi all, [message BCCed to aj] I wanted you all to be aware how Sarge is treating Documentation and the DFSG: Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable, and wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This