Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Thomas
