Re: documentation x executable code

[Peter Vandenabeele <peter.vandenabeele@mind.be>]

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 08:53:45AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Peter Vandenabeele writes:
> > 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.

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". 

But an "invariant section" in the terms of GFDL, when it is a free choice of 
the author (and thus not legally required), is not acceptable in the current
definition of "Free" in Debian.

Peter