|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
|
|
|
+@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}.
|
Paul Eggert