[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GDB manual

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> The reason I have said that a few times is that I have seen various
> messages here that don't seem to recognize that what the GFDL says is
> not a Debian decision.  You can suggest changes but cannot demand
> changes.  I'm not likely to accept suggestions that come with what
> feels like a pressure campaign.

Debian is committed to free software, and we are committed to free
documentation, and we have a fairly clear statement of standards.  We
work together with all upstream people to see if those who have
non-free terms will change them.  Sometimes they say "no, being
non-free is more important than being in Debian".  Sometimes they say
"we didn't realize it was non-free, how can we fix it?"

I hope the FSF will land in the second category.

This is not an attempt to coerce the FSF into changing the GFDL; it's
rather a matter of saying "this is non-free; if you change it, we can
have it in Debian".

> To call a program or a manual non-free is a serious accusation, and it
> needs more grounds than inconvenience alone.  

Yes, but no amount of convenience can make something non-free into
something free.  

There are many things that I think it's perfectly reasonable for them
to be non-free.  There are many moral non-free things out there.
Proving that they are moral, good ideas, valuable, or whatever else,
does not establish that they are free.


Reply to: