+@node References
+@chapter References to Non-Free Software and Documentation
+@cindex references to non-free material
+
+A GNU program should not recommend, promote, or grant legitimacy to
+the use of any non-free program. Proprietary software is a social and
+ethical problem, and our aim is to put an end to that problem. We
+can't stop some people from writing proprietary programs, or stop
+other people from using them, but we can and should refuse to
+advertise them to new potential customers, or to give the public the
+idea that their existence is ethical.
+
+The GNU definition of free software is found on the GNU web site at
+@url{http://www.gnu.org/@/philosophy/@/free-sw.html}, and the definition
+of free documentation is found at
+@url{http://www.gnu.org/@/philosophy/@/free-doc.html}. The terms ``free''
+and ``non-free'', used in this document, refer to those definitions.
+
+A list of important licenses and whether they qualify as free is in
+@url{http://www.gnu.org/@/licenses/@/license-list.html}. If it is not
+clear whether a license qualifies as free, please ask the GNU Project
+by writing to @email{licensing@@gnu.org}. We will answer, and if the
+license is an important one, we will add it to the list.
+
+When a non-free program or system is well known, you can mention it in
+passing---that is harmless, since users who might want to use it
+probably already know about it. For instance, it is fine to explain
+how to build your package on top of some widely used non-free
+operating system, or how to use it together with some widely used
+non-free program.
+
+However, you should give only the necessary information to help those
+who already use the non-free program to use your program with
+it---don't give, or refer to, any further information about the
+proprietary program, and don't imply that the proprietary program
+enhances your program, or that its existence is in any way a good
+thing. The goal should be that people already using the proprietary
+program will get the advice they need about how to use your free
+program with it, while people who don't already use the proprietary
+program will not see anything likely to lead them to take an interest
+in it.
+
+If a non-free program or system is obscure in your program's domain,
+your program should not mention or support it at all, since doing so
+would tend to popularize the non-free program more than it popularizes
+your program. (You cannot hope to find many additional users for your
+program among the users of Foobar, if the existence of Foobar is not
+generally known among people who might want to use your program.)
+
+Sometimes a program is free software in itself but depends on a
+non-free platform in order to run. For instance, many Java programs
+depend on some non-free Java libraries. To recommend or promote such
+a program is to promote the other programs it needs. This is why we
+are careful about listing Java programs in the Free Software
+Directory: we don't want to promote the non-free Java libraries.
+
+We hope this particular problem with Java will be gone by and by, as
+we replace the remaining non-free standard Java libraries with free
+software, but the general principle will remain the same: don't
+recommend, promote or legitimize programs that depend on non-free
+software to run.
+
+Some free programs strongly encourage the use of non-free software. A
+typical example is @command{mplayer}. It is free software in itself,
+and the free code can handle some kinds of files. However,
+@command{mplayer} recommends use of non-free codecs for other kinds of
+files, and users that install @command{mplayer} are very likely to
+install those codecs along with it. To recommend @command{mplayer}
+is, in effect, to promote use of the non-free codecs.
+
+Thus, you should not recommend programs that strongly encourage the
+use of non-free software. This is why we do not list
+@command{mplayer} in the Free Software Directory.
+
+A GNU package should not refer the user to any non-free documentation
+for free software. Free documentation that can be included in free
+operating systems is essential for completing the GNU system, or any
+free operating system, so encouraging it is a priority; to recommend
+use of documentation that we are not allowed to include undermines the
+impetus for the community to produce documentation that we can
+include. So GNU packages should never recommend non-free
+documentation.
+
+By contrast, it is ok to refer to journal articles and textbooks in
+the comments of a program for explanation of how it functions, even
+though they are non-free. This is because we don't include such
+things in the GNU system even they are free---they are outside the
+scope of what a software distribution needs to include.
+
+Referring to a web site that describes or recommends a non-free
+program is promoting that program, so please do not make links (or
+mention by name) web sites that contain such material. This policy is
+relevant particularly for the web pages for a GNU package.
+
+Following links from nearly any web site can lead eventually to
+non-free software; this is inherent in the nature of the web. So it
+makes no sense to criticize a site for having such links. As long as
+the site does not itself recommend a non-free program, there is no
+need to consider the question of the sites that it links to for other
+reasons.
+
+Thus, for example, you should not refer to AT&T's web site if that
+recommends AT&T's non-free software packages; you should not refer to
+a site that links to AT&T's site presenting it as a place to get some
+non-free program, because that link recommends and legitimizes the
+non-free program. However, that a site contains a link to AT&T's web
+site for some other purpose (such as long-distance telephone service)
+is not an objection against it.
+
+@node GNU Free Documentation License
+@appendix GNU Free Documentation License
+
+@cindex FDL, GNU Free Documentation License
+@include fdl.texi
+
+@node Index
+@unnumbered Index
+@printindex cp