Please only quote those portions of the text to which you are replying. I have removed the text that you quoted. On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 09:46 +0400, olive wrote: > 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. 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. How is this required? Several programs in Debian have little or no documentation. Because people have the source, they can discover how those programs work. Contrast this with a free program depending on a non-free library, where people cannot use the free program without using (or reimplementing) the non-free library. Another difference is that there are many different free examples of input for autoconf, and no free examples of the non-free library. IOW, it may be inconvenient to use the code in question, but it is possible. Documentation is not required to use code which has source. You may have heard the phrase, "Use the source, Luke." I also do not believe you because if autoconf-doc were required for using autoconf, then autoconf should have a Depends: (or at least, a Recommends:) on it. This is not the case. If the consensus is that documentation is required for use (I do not agree at all), then that would be cause for removing autoconf from main, not including autoconf-doc.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part