Richard Stallman wrote:
Yes. "Debian will remain 100% free software". That's the first line of the Debian Social Contract. This means that everything in Debian must be free *software*.That is one possible interpretation, but since it is based on asserting that manuals, essays, licenses, and logos are software, I think it is not the proper one.
We hope to show you the error of your ways. ;-)
Bruce Perens has clarified that the DFSG was intended to apply to everything on the Debian CD. I don't think you're right about this.I think the text was written without regard to the presence of material other than software in thedistribution, and it ought to be interpreted in that light.
It has been made clear *many* times that the interpretation of "software" generally used here is "the part of the computer which is not hardware". This is the original and more accurate meaning of "software". Manuals, essays, licenses, and logos *encoded as bits on a computer* are software. A carving of a program on a stone tablet is not software. Accordingly there is nothing in the Debian distribution which is not software.
But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we accept your interpretation. I still see no reason to believe that documentation should be treated differently from programs with regard to freedom. Several good reasons have been given to treat it exactly the same way, many related to the difficulty of separating documentation entirely from programs, and the desirability of not separating it.
If you really have good, specific reasons to treat it differently in such a way that Invariant Sections are OK for documentation and not for programs, do tell; I haven't heard any.