Re: GDB manual
Richard Stallman <firstname.lastname@example.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
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.