GFDL/GPL issues

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Joern Rennecke <joern.rennecke@embecosm.com> writes:

> 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?

I know it's awfully tempting, but please: no arguments about whether
GFDL is a free license on the gcc mailing list.

Ian