Re: Futile bug reports?

[Ryan Yeske]

none@example.invalid (Alan Mackenzie) writes:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote on Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:30:53 -0600:
> 
> > Our policy is that this list should not be used to publicize *any*
> > non-free manuals, or any non-free software.  It makes no difference
> > whether there is a free replacement (or, if there is one, who
> > distributes it).
> 
> We recently had a discussion along these lines in gnu.emacs.help.
> 
> The conclusion I reached was that, although free software is invariably
> better than its restricted counterparts, free tutorial documentation is
> usually less good than (the best of the) commercially published
> alternatives.  Why this should be would likely make a good PhD thesis.
> 
> I think the above stated policy is misguided - Instead of shunning such
> books as (?)idealogically unwanted, you could embrace them as
> _enhancements_ to free software.  This would help free software, such as
> emacs, to get accepted by more people than otherwise would.  This is
> surely in accordance with the aims of the FSF.

Free software needs free documentation.

If you "embrace" the use of non-free documentation then you discourage
the creation of free documentation.  You cannot make an exception
based on the quality of the non-free documentation or how much it
might help increase the acceptance of the free software it describes.

Ryan