first

1 files changed, 145 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/free-doc.md b/docs/free-doc.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ced678c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/free-doc.md
@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation {#why-free-software-needs-freedocumentation .chapter}
+=============================================
+
+The biggest deficiency in free operating systems is not in the
+software—it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in
+these systems. Many of our most important programs do not come with full
+manuals. Documentation is an essential part of any software package;
+when an important free software package does not come with a free
+manual, that is a major gap. We have many such gaps today.
+
+Once upon a time, many years ago, I thought I would learn Perl. I got a
+copy of a free manual, but I found it hard to read. When I asked Perl
+users about alternatives, they told me that there were better
+introductory manuals—but those were not free.
+
+Why was this? The authors of the good manuals had written them for
+O’Reilly Associates, which published them with restrictive terms—no
+copying, no modification, source files not available—which exclude them
+from the free software community.
+
+That wasn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened, and (to our
+community’s great loss) it was far from the last. Proprietary manual
+publishers have enticed a great many authors to restrict their manuals
+since then. Many times I have heard a GNU user eagerly tell me about a
+manual that he is writing, with which he expects to help the GNU
+Project—and then had my hopes dashed, as he proceeded to explain that he
+had signed a contract with a publisher that would restrict it so that we
+cannot use it.
+
+Given that writing good English is a rare skill among programmers, we
+can ill afford to lose manuals this way.
+
+Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
+price. The problem with these manuals was not that O’Reilly Associates
+charged a price for printed copies—that in itself is fine. (The Free
+Software Foundation sells printed copies of free GNU manuals,
+too.[(1)](#FOOT1)) But GNU manuals are available in source code form,
+while these manuals are available only on paper. GNU manuals come with
+permission to copy and modify; the Perl manuals do not. These
+restrictions are the problems.
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 1996–2007,
+2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\
+ {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 1996. This
+version is part of @fsfsthreecite}
+
+The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for free
+software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms.
+Redistribution (including commercial redistribution) must be permitted,
+so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program, on line or
+on paper. Permission for modification is crucial too.
+
+As a general rule, I don’t believe that it is essential for people to
+have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues
+for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For
+example, I don’t think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify
+articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views.
+
+But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial
+for documentation for free software. When people exercise their right to
+modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are
+conscientious they will change the manual too—so they can provide
+accurate and usable documentation with the modified program. A manual
+which forbids programmers from being conscientious and finishing the
+job, or more precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch
+if they change the program, does not fill our community’s needs.
+
+While a blanket prohibition on modification is unacceptable, some kinds
+of limits on the method of modification pose no problem. 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 to have entire sections that may not be deleted or
+changed, as long as these sections deal with nontechnical topics. (Some
+GNU manuals have them.)
+
+These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because, as a practical
+matter, they don’t stop the conscientious programmer from adapting the
+manual to fit the modified program. In other words, they don’t block the
+free software community from making full use of the manual.
+
+However, it must be possible to modify all the *technical* content of
+the manual, and then distribute the result through all the usual media,
+through all the usual channels; otherwise, the restrictions do block the
+community, the manual is not free, and so we need another manual.
+
+Unfortunately, it is often hard to find someone to write another manual
+when a proprietary manual exists. The obstacle is that many users think
+that a proprietary manual is good enough—so they don’t see the need to
+write a free manual. They do not see that the free operating system has
+a gap that needs filling.
+
+Why do users think that proprietary manuals are good enough? Some have
+not considered the issue. I hope this article will do something to
+change that.
+
+Other users consider proprietary manuals acceptable for the same reason
+so many people consider proprietary software acceptable: they judge in
+purely practical terms, not using freedom as a criterion. These people
+are entitled to their opinions, but since those opinions spring from
+values which do not include freedom, they are no guide for those of us
+who do value freedom.
+
+Please spread the word about this issue. We continue to lose manuals to
+proprietary publishing. If we spread the word that proprietary manuals
+are not sufficient, perhaps the next person who wants to help GNU by
+writing documentation will realize, before it is too late, that he must
+above all make it free.
+
+We can also encourage commercial publishers to sell free, copylefted
+manuals instead of proprietary ones.[(2)](#FOOT2) One way you can help
+this is to check the distribution terms of a manual before you buy it,
+and prefer copylefted manuals to noncopylefted ones.
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+### Footnotes
+
+### [(1)](#DOCF1)
+
+@raggedright See <http://shop.fsf.org/category/books/> and\
+ <http://gnu.org/doc/doc.html>. @end raggedright
+
+### [(2)](#DOCF2)
+
+@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/doc/other-free-books.html> for a list
+of free books available from other publishers. @end raggedright
+
+</div>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\