CACert Root CA license problem (Is this is GFSD Free ?)

The Debian discussion thread suggests that a public key certificate cannot be copyrighted because it is not a work. I would agree with that. I don't think that there is anything that binds Trisquel or any developers to that particular agreement.

I think that the intention is to protect themselves and that they their licence is confused and should be quite better rewrote, the demonstration in the fedora page linked just lead to non-sense I think (and that would be another reason not to take it seriously).
Moreover, a certificate is not a software. There are some documentation in the gnu.org web site that can't be modified, but this is documentation, not software, so it's perfectly understandable. So, the question would be: how do we consider a certificate?
As they are organised as a community (like free software users and developers), I think they would be open to discuss about that), so, if there is really a problem I think the best way to deal with that would be to contact them to try to solve that problem with them.

Parabola GNU/Linux (also GNU FSDG approved) are of the opinion that the CAcert root certificate is OK, they even use CAcert for their own site's cert. I guess their reasoning is because a certificate is effectively covered under 'statements of opinion or judgment' and therefore counts as non-functional data where the right to copy for commercial and non-commercial purposes is the sole criteria. It has to be this way for public keys or everybody would be entitled to a copy of Trisquel's private key which is used to sign the repos.

However, the certificate is not in Trisquel 7.0 as it has been dropped by upstream. So the question is now nougatory.