91 lines
4.7 KiB
Plaintext
91 lines
4.7 KiB
Plaintext
@appendix Free Software Needs Free Documentation
|
|
@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}.
|