Re: documentation x executable code
Peter Vandenabeele writes:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:31:31AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:56:57AM +0100, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > > An interesting consequence of this proposal is that a Copy-Exact of
> > > the GPL License could not longer go into main (as it is essentially
> > > one large invariant section. I quote from GPL:
> > > "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> > > of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.")
> >
> > This is false. I suggest you read the rest of the thread to see why,
> > or any of the other three or four hundred times people have tried to
> > convince us that Free Software is hopeless and we should just give
> > up by claiming that license documents can't go in main.
>
> I am fairly new to this list, but I have followed this thread for
> some time now.
>
> I did not understand why a document with invariant sections cannot
> be part of "Free/main" (in the Debian context) and the GPL license
> which states that it only allows verbatim copies can be.
An invariant section is an integral part of the documentation; by the
GFDL's definition, it is otherwise irrelevant content. The license is
legally required metadata: The copyright owner provides a particular
license to users, and those users must know exactly what that license
is. No redistributor may alter that license's text and pass it off as
applying to the original software.
Michael Poole
Reply to: