Free speech has nothing to do with forcing distributions to propose all free
software (what Debian and Parabola do not do either). Actually, I would even
argue in the opposite way: every GNU/Linux distribution must be free to
select whatever package they want. Notice that your stance would also entail
that "not proposing proprietary software is against freedom of speech".
By the way, notice that the package name means "Virtual rms" although it does
not represent rms' opinions on what is free/unfree. In particular, vrms
reports the GNU FDL documentation as unfree! I agree with the Trisquel
project that it is "misleading". If the package name would represent rms'
opinions, its implementation in Trisquel's repository would take one Shell
line (and would be pointless):
echo 'No non-free package installed. rms would be proud.'
