Re: Missing documentation for autoconf
> The social contract say also "We will never make the system require the
> use of a non-free component". It is reasonable to think that the use of
> Debian requires the GFDL documentation.
Even assuming the above "it is reasonable" is true, the following
does not hold:
> If Debian think there are
> non-free they are breaking the social contract; could someone explain me
> how this is not a break of the social contract.
"...never make THE SYSTEM require the use of a non-free component."
Even if your use of autoconf requires you to make use of non-free
software, the system does not require the use of that software.
The system != the user of the system
[Otherwise, consider that the C language specification is by far not
free software, and where that'd put us]
 A proposition with which I disagree. Personally I've managed to use
quite a bit of software without resort to the docs.