diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'REORG.TODO/manual/freemanuals.texi')
| -rw-r--r-- | REORG.TODO/manual/freemanuals.texi | 93 |
1 files changed, 93 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/REORG.TODO/manual/freemanuals.texi b/REORG.TODO/manual/freemanuals.texi new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..9caf22017c --- /dev/null +++ b/REORG.TODO/manual/freemanuals.texi @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +@c freemanuals.texi - blurb for free documentation. +@c This file is intended to be included within another document, +@c hence no sectioning command or @node. + +@cindex free documentation + +The biggest deficiency in the free software community today is not in +the software---it is the lack of good free documentation that we can +include with the free software. Many of our most important +programs do not come with free reference manuals and free introductory +texts. Documentation is an essential part of any software package; +when an important free software package does not come with a free +manual and a free tutorial, that is a major gap. We have many such +gaps today. + +Consider Perl, for instance. The tutorial manuals that people +normally use are non-free. How did this come about? Because the +authors of those manuals published them with restrictive terms---no +copying, no modification, source files not available---which exclude +them from the free software world. + +That wasn't the first time this sort of thing happened, and it was far +from the last. Many times we have heard a GNU user eagerly describe a +manual that he is writing, his intended contribution to the community, +only to learn that he had ruined everything by signing a publication +contract to make it non-free. + +Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not +price. The problem with the non-free manual is not that publishers +charge a price for printed copies---that in itself is fine. (The Free +Software Foundation sells printed copies of manuals, too.) The +problem is the restrictions on the use of the manual. Free manuals +are available in source code form, and give you permission to copy and +modify. Non-free manuals do not allow this. + +The criteria of freedom for a free manual are roughly the same as for +free software. Redistribution (including the normal kinds of +commercial redistribution) must be permitted, so that the manual can +accompany every copy of the program, both on-line and on paper. + +Permission for modification of the technical content is crucial too. +When people modify the software, adding or changing features, if they +are conscientious they will change the manual too---so they can +provide accurate and clear documentation for the modified program. A +manual that leaves you no choice but to write a new manual to document +a changed version of the program is not really available to our +community. + +Some kinds of limits on the way modification is handled are +acceptable. For example, requirements to preserve the original +author's copyright notice, the distribution terms, or the list of +authors, are ok. It is also no problem to require modified versions +to include notice that they were modified. Even entire sections that +may not be deleted or changed are acceptable, as long as they deal +with nontechnical topics (like this one). These kinds of restrictions +are acceptable because they don't obstruct the community's normal use +of the manual. + +However, it must be possible to modify all the @emph{technical} +content of the manual, and then distribute the result in all the usual +media, through all the usual channels. Otherwise, the restrictions +obstruct the use of the manual, it is not free, and we need another +manual to replace it. + +Please spread the word about this issue. Our community continues to +lose manuals to proprietary publishing. If we spread the word that +free software needs free reference manuals and free tutorials, perhaps +the next person who wants to contribute by writing documentation will +realize, before it is too late, that only free manuals contribute to +the free software community. + +If you are writing documentation, please insist on publishing it under +the GNU Free Documentation License or another free documentation +license. Remember that this decision requires your approval---you +don't have to let the publisher decide. Some commercial publishers +will use a free license if you insist, but they will not propose the +option; it is up to you to raise the issue and say firmly that this is +what you want. If the publisher you are dealing with refuses, please +try other publishers. If you're not sure whether a proposed license +is free, write to @email{licensing@@gnu.org}. + +You can encourage commercial publishers to sell more free, copylefted +manuals and tutorials by buying them, and particularly by buying +copies from the publishers that paid for their writing or for major +improvements. Meanwhile, try to avoid buying non-free documentation +at all. Check the distribution terms of a manual before you buy it, +and insist that whoever seeks your business must respect your freedom. +Check the history of the book, and try reward the publishers that have +paid or pay the authors to work on it. + +The Free Software Foundation maintains a list of free documentation +published by other publishers, at +@url{http://www.fsf.org/doc/other-free-books.html}. |