FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement

[Rahul Sundaram]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 14, 2007, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 
>> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
>>> Documentation is important for software, but it's not software.  It
>>> ought to be modifyable such that it can be maintained in sync with the
>>> software.  Invariant sections don't stop this if used properly.
> 
>> There is there no guarantee that it will be used properly.
> 
> The point being?
> 

It is open to abuse.

>> If anybody adds text like say "Free software sucks" in a invariant
>> section then we can't include that documentation
> 
> Why not?

Unrelated to technical content.

> Documentation is not software.  Licenses are not software.  I'm trying
> to discuss software freedom issues.  What are you trying to prove with
> this distraction?

It is not a distraction from a distribution view point. We don't 
distribute just software. When discussing freedom in software how it 
applies to document is very related.
> 
> So can software licenses and copyright notices.  So what are you going
> to do, ban software licenses and copyright notices because they can be
> abused?

Invariant sections in document has nothing in common with license and 
copyright notices.

> Oh, non-Free firmware can also be abused.  Can we ban it too, pretty
> please? ;-)

How are you helping? There is still no packaging draft presented.

Rahul