Re: GFDL/GPL issues

[Joern Rennecke <joern dot rennecke at embecosm dot com>]

Quoting Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>:

> "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@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?