diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-doc.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-doc.html | 215 |
1 files changed, 215 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-doc.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-doc.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dcca67c --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-doc.html @@ -0,0 +1,215 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 --> +<title>Why Free Software needs Free Documentation +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> + +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-doc.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> + +<h2>Why Free Software needs Free Documentation</h2> + +<blockquote class="announcement"><p> +<a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list +about the dangers of eBooks</a>. +</p></blockquote> + +<ul> +<li><a href="/copyleft/fdl.html">The GNU Free Documentation License</a></li> +</ul> + +<p> +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.</p> + +<p> +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 (not +freedom-respecting).</p> + +<p> +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 made them nonfree, thus excluded them from the +Free World.</p> + +<p> +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.</p> + +<p> +Given that writing good English is a rare skill among programmers, we +can ill afford to lose manuals this way.</p> + +<p> +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 +<a href="http://shop.fsf.org/category/books/">sells printed +copies</a> of free <a href="/doc/doc.html">GNU manuals</a>, too.) 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.</p> + +<p> +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.</p> + +<p> +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.</p> + +<p> +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.</p> + +<p> +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.)</p> + +<p> +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.</p> + +<p> +However, it must be possible to modify all the <em>technical</em> +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.</p> + +<p> +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.</p> + +<p> +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.</p> + +<p> +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.</p> + +<p> +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.</p> + +<p> +We can also encourage commercial publishers to sell free, copylefted +manuals instead of proprietary ones. 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.</p> +<p> +[Note: We maintain a <a href="/doc/other-free-books.html">page +that lists free books available from other publishers</a>].</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, +2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2016, 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2019/12/27 22:55:30 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |