Re: documentation x executable code

[mjr@dsl.pipex.com]

peter.vandenabeele wrote:
> Thanks. I hope I understand it now:
> 
> Because the license is _legally required_ it is acceptable (as an exception)
> to be in an "invariant" form in "main".

IIRC, most licences are licensed under their own terms, so aren't
invariant, except as needed by copyright law. GPL and LGPL are also
named in the 10th DFSG. Maybe because their non-free bit is easily
detached and I guess most of us like most of what it says anyway.

Maybe the preambles aren't a bug (thanks to someone reminding me).