Joern Rennecke <joern.renne...@embecosm.com> writes: > Quoting Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu>: > >> "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> writes: >> >>> It should be noted that Debian considers the GFDL a non-free >>> /software/ license; which it is, but then the GFDL is not a software >>> license to begin with. >> >> The official Debian position is that the distinction between a software >> license and a non-software license for the sort of material distributed in >> Debian is an artificial and meaningless distinction because of, among >> other reasons, exactly the use case being discussed in this thread. > > It is relevant that the invariant sections are not executable code; > since they do not affect the execution of the program, they are only > one step further from an author attribution notice that may not be > removed. > The latter are allowed under GPLv3 as an Additional Term > under 7 b - does that make GPLv3 w/ author attribution similarly > non-free in the eyes of Debian?
I know it's awfully tempting, but please: no arguments about whether GFDL is a free license on the gcc mailing list. Ian
