[directory-discuss] Antifeatures: Why GNU Radio needs a "nonfree documentation" flag

[Nomen Nescio]

  >> If someone wraps "standard-conforming simple HTML" documentation
  >> in some kind of corporate blob unusable to free software users, do
  >> we accept that as conformant?
  [quote unbutchered, context restored]
  > It's not.

  Yes it is.  Here is a sample:

    
https://entp-tender-production.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/3e9d7001fcc0dae367198e8a815204317db43320/anki_nongui.png?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAISVUXXOK32ATONEQ&Expires=1800510383&Signature=0l1hqGIHAdagtNzBGUWJo7PldeM%3D

  More specifically:

  * It's not simple HTML
  * It is a corporate blob in the SaaSS sense
    (which is actually the worst kind, as stated in the SaaSS doc)
  * It's not the manual, therefore unusable as such

> Anyone who gets past the obstacles has freedom and can share it
> without those obstacles.

IOW, "If we could only disregard user freedoms in pursuit of freedom..."

Hence the importance of the documentation inclusion rule in the GNU
Free Documentation License ("GFDL").

> I think https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Access
> applies for documentation and applies here.

It's an abuse of the "words to avoid" advice document to undermine the
GFDL, which states:

  "free software needs free documentation: a free program should come
   with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does."

A license is legally binding.  The "Words to Avoid" advice does not
trump the GFDL.  Nor does it trump the SaaSS philosophy, a work
devoted to entirely treating the scenario of access denial.

Even if we accept this bizarre positioning that SaaSS philosphy and
the GFDL rules don't apply, would it then be appropropriate to include
projects for which its artificts are unavailable (or only available
within corporate environments) in the FSF directory?

Cluttering the FSF directory with unavailable options makes it less
useful (notwithstanding the antifeature banner).  Otherwise, I have a
personally coded undistributed free tic-tac-toe game to add the to the
FSF directory.

> Yes, this is an issue, but it does not fit in our existing
> categories, and let's not add more at this point.

How does the "GNU Free Documentation License" non-conformance "not
fit" in our existing "nonfree documentation" category?