1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
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/).\
|
